Obama Defines Social Security 'Doughnut' Plan

By Glenn Kessler
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sen. Barack Obama today plans to make a firm commitment to a Social Security tax hike on people making more than $250,000 a year, stepping away from an earlier plan he floated last year to boost the 12.4 percent payroll tax on all workers as a way of extending the program's solvency.

Taxes to fund Social Security end once a worker makes more than $102,000 this year, a ceiling that is indexed to inflation. Workers and employees share the cost, with each contributing 6.2 percent. Under Obama's plan, which the presumptive Democratic nominee will discuss this afternoon at a retirement community here, there would be a "doughnut" between $102,000 and $250,000 when no taxes are paid, according to a campaign adviser who asked not to be identified. But then new taxes would be imposed on people making more than $250,000.

While Obama has discussed the doughnut concept before, the adviser said there has been some confusion about his position and the campaign wanted to make it clear that he was embracing this option and setting aside the idea of boosting the payroll tax on everyone. The ceiling on the Medicare tax was lifted as part of former President Clinton's budget bill in 1993, but the Social Security tax has been much more politically sensitive.

In prepared remarks the campaign distributed to reporters, Obama plans to say that such an increase "can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden on to seniors" while leaving "absolutely no change" in taxes for 97 percent of Americans."The best way forward is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected," Obama plans to say.

Obama also plans to tweak Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, for having once expressed interest in a payroll tax hike and for denying ever having supported President Bush's plan to create private investment accounts for retirees.

The Obama campaign adviser said "such a change would likely be gradual, either phased in
over time, implemented with a delay, or both." He also said there are various ways the plan could be implemented, such as with or without crediting the extra taxes toward benefits, lowering the tax rate at higher wage levels, and extending the income base beyond the payroll tax.

Fully eliminating the payroll tax cap would provide more than enough income to keep Social Security solvent for more than 75 years; Obama's current proposal would fall short of that goal, the adviser acknowledged.

Social Security is currently running a surplus, which is being used to help reduce the annual budget deficit. While Social Security receives Treasury bonds in exchange for those payments, eventually those bonds must be redeemed by the U.S. government, putting further strain on the federal budget as the baby boom generation begins to retire and the pool of workers needed to finance Social Security payments begins to shrink.

while i certainly am no fan of the rich, extending the social security taxable income is insane. you would be charging people more tax who wont get more benefit. thats totally unfair. everyone pays on income up to 102K. if you start to continue charging tax of 110K,.120K etc it only serves to tax these people and giving them nothing for their money. not to mention the stress on business. bad idea.

Raising the minimum wage to $40/hr will solve this problem overnight. If that doesn't sound realistic, perhaps we should consider returning to the tax rates in effect during the Eisenhower administration. Everyone liked Ike, although the GOP doesn't seem to bring him up much any more (preferring instead to invoke Lincoln or TR, though neither would qualify as a Republican on today's scale...just like Jesus would be a commie-socialist).

Today's GOP is the party of McKinley, and nearly as dead. Now would be a good time for all you fake Christians to learn how to pray for real.

It won't matter if Barack Hussein Obama becomes president because then all our tax dollars will be going to welfare for a bunch of damn Mexican illegals.
Who else is sick of white people's money being taken for the sake of degenerate minorities?

I'm often baffled by the percentage of American people who have absolutely no understanding of basic issues. The reason that there is a cap on SS is that successful people are capped in how much they can collect at retirement. SS is SUPPOSED to be a retirement fund. How would the poor people reading this like to pay into their retirement plan every year and then only have 50% of that money available when they retire? Raising the cap on SS is just a euphemism for taxing BOTH successful people and the companies that employ them.

The clear solution to the SS problem is to allow successful people to opt out by providing additional incentives such as privatizing a portion of their income. If, for example, they raised the cap to 150K and allowed the 12.4% over the normal cap to go directly to the employees into a private retirement account, you could get just about all of the young successful people to opt out or take less of SS. Successful people (the so-called "rich") get screwed on SS anyway.

Wow, the nasty right-wingers are really out with their anti-Obama vitriol.

Social Security was never a retirement plan. In a retirement plan, benefits are proportional to contributions. Social Security has never been like this -- instead, it gave benefits shortly after it started getting contributions. Social Security also funds people with disabilities who are young and provides benefits for orphans, widows and widowers.

Since right-wingers cannot find any reason to object to Social Security, they need to fabricate and try to confuse us.

I'm no tax, or even economic, expert, but isn't Spencer99 being a bit disingenuous when he cites the U.S. as having the highest tax rates in the world? How many multi-millionaires or billionaires actually pay at the rates cited? Citing just the tax rate without considering all the deductions and loopholes available to the wealthiest taxpayers isn't giving us the full story. How about citing the actual tax contribution relative to income? As I understand it, the taxes paid by Americans relative to GDP are 27.3%, a rate that is lower than just about any other industrialized country.

Raising Social Security taxes puts more money into Social Security but! Social Sercurity is a government planned retirement plan! So in the long run, whatever you pay in Social Sercurity will ultimately be paid back! We need to have a president who actually understands the U.S. government. I think he's confused again on that little thing called Reality.

OBAMA is a Trojan Horse! But before I go into that, I want to address these idiots about WWII. The world is extremely lucky that the Kamikaze Japanese attacked the U.S. Please refer to www.luft46.com . You will see Hitler's plan for America and the technology the U.S. obtained from the NAZIs. The Japanese would "stop at nothing" to kill all Americans, even though we were a neutral country at the time. The Japanese emperor (yes, Japan was not as civilized back then; it was basically communist) actually knew that only America had the power to stop the Germans and feared us. Ironically thank god, Japan attacked us and pulled us into the war. In 1946, Hitler's plan to kill America would have done just that. We had to do what we did to stop all efforts at ending democracy and freedom for all human beings. The Japanese would not stop... "God Bless America!"
In reference to the "race card", I actually out of mere curiosity looked up African American billionaires to see Business experience. I found that they as a whole race had only 4 Billionaires in U.S. history. Actually a Black Wo-MAN (Oprah Winfrey - Talk show host) had more money than any black "man" for 3 years running, but what I found is that Blacks have NEVER had a Multi-Billionaire in U.S. history. It scared me because the U.S.A. is a Multi-Trillion dollar country (business)!!! Obviously white little "boys" don't know anything about real money and Fifty (No Sense) Cent knows everything, much like many ENTERTAINMENT welfarians (Compared to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc...). They don't know anything about Real Money and Real Business. Bottom-line blacks have not advanced into real business (Freedom of FREE ENTERPRISE) enough for any of them to run a Multi-Trillion Dollar Country... (What about in Africa? Why does the U.S. still contribute 50% of world wide food money? Why can't Africa have more 1st world countries? Why don't the Blacks take care of their own? Obama wants to Increase the Welfare Program and have a mandate for Health Care for Children so American taxpayers can pay for the children who don't have a responsible "MAN" in their lives. Please take a look at which race has the most children in adoption programs.)
OK Back to Religion, The United Church of ANTI-CHRIST in Chicago, where Obama attended for over 20 years, which by the way America, every year has 52 Sundays! Do the math! (20 years x 52 Sundays = 1,040 Anti-Christ Sermons!) WOW! And whites invented Aids but forgot to invent the cure! (Is Aids just a Black Disease? Um NO, we also forgot to make it racially specific, I personally have taken credit for Hurricanes.) Obama is simply acting like he is pro-american, but in truth his unforgiving and everlasting hate rivals Satan's himself. Reverend Wright/Obama's beliefs are simply insane! (The Wright Voting law should go into effect, where Voters can change their vote even after they've already voted because they should have the power to change their mind until the DNC.) "God will not hesitate to throw Satan out of Heaven, don't you ever, ever forget it!" Can the world imagine if Americans didn't help so many people?!?! Imagine it!
Spike Lee's comments to Clint Eastwood were ridiculous. Obama and Lee are simply successful in one aspect and that is to rehash a lot of old hate. "IF" we have another civil war in America, it will be called "The War of the Free". If Satan thinks he's better than God, then God will be more than happy to show him the door... The truth is, as all know, is that Blacks have not always been this advanced. Recently I viewed a show on the Discovery Channel where a Black "Man" invented Irrigation in Africa in 2007.
On to "Change we can Believe in." = "Change you can Xerox!" Wasn't it Hillary Clinton and the Clintons who taxed people over $250,000.00/year incomes? Um YES! So Obama got out his trusty Thesaurus and "changed the wording" but forgot to change the income amount. Payroll Taxes and Taxing people with over $250,000.00/year incomes is the same thing! Also, the DNC does NOT require candidates to report donors (campaign contributors) under $200.00. So Obama kept a list of all of these donors and literally bribed super delegates with his list. So when these Democrats go for re-election they have a fresh list of donors to once again loyally contribute.

In closing I want to say MCCAIN/CLINTON 2008. It's time for a Bi-Partisan Ticket, a Strong President with an economical genius VP (Clinton). The last time the U.S. had a Bi-Partisan ticket was Lincoln's 2nd term.

I'm not a racist. I am merely a REALIST, this is REALISM, do NOT mistake it for anything else...

I appreciate your thoughtful posts. I did not mean to avoid answering your question about whether the best country in the world should have the highest taxes. The answer to that in my opinion is no, because we don't need to have the highest taxes. Tax rates have come down for virtually all industrialized countries in the last 20 years, while they have gone up for us. We have been, at the risk of sounding arrogant, the best country in the world for a long time.

the warren buffet comparison drives me crazy. He is making this comment because 100% of his income is from capital gains - that is money he PUT AT RISK and INVESTED IN. it is NOT a salary guaranty. Just wait and see what happens later this year when it becomes clearer and clearer that obama will win - people are going to be selling their stock positions like crazy to lock in the lower rate gain before the tax rules change.

Devil's in the details on this one. If they impose FICA on incomes above $250K, how are they going to adjust the benefits for the people who pay those taxes? Will they have those people paying higher FICA tax rates, too?

As long as the wealth of the top 1.5% is accelerating and that of the lower half or maybe 80% are not, I say that Obama is on sound footing in increasing the tax on the wealthy. When that changes we have to change tax policy. I am not a member of the soak the rich club, but when Warren Buffet says that his secretary pays tax at a higher rate than he does I know something is wrong. When hedge fund managers, earning billions per year,not millions, pay tax on their earnings at 15% I know something is wrong. When corporate balance sheets are very strong, I know that the timing for lowering corporate tax rates is not in the present. While big oil is getting added tax benefits and are having record profits I can not see lowering their tax rate.

I think that Obama is a better choice than McCain because he is not wed to any economic theory and with him we will come closer to a balanced budget without being insensitive to those without economic means. For too long we have managed this economy on the backs of the politically least powerful. Barack Obama by getting those people involved will alter that equation.

As for soaking the rich I simply do not know what the evidence is. As long as their wealth is rising disproportionately I think they are under taxed. As for which quintile pays what I have no interest, the only question is who can afford what and I use wealth as my criteria for who can afford what. You use fairness and that is an emotional or a spiritual question but it does not give you an economic answer.

I am used to being called overly analytical, too blunt and at times even convoluted but naive would not describe me aptly. You condensed my position to everything is alright but I hardly think that was my position.

I found it interesting that you ignored my question of whether the fact that we live in the best country in the world does not justify having the highest tax rate? It is in fact a central part of my thinking. The wealthy benefit disproportionally from this country and as long as that is the case they should be taxed disproportional. We will know when that changes because there will be an exodus. But until then things are fine. Tax policy though should be more related to wealth changes rather than any nebulous sense of fairness.

I am not being intellectually dishonest because my taxes will increase under Obama's plan but it will help to rebalance our economy. I believe there will come a time that my taxes will again need to decrease because of economic need.

So Barack Obama will start taxing earnings of over $250,000 for Social Security. That won't be enough so the tax will then be applied to the donut hole of $102,000 to $249,999.99. That won't be enough so the payroll tax will go up across the board. That won't be enought so the payroll tax will be made progressive and so on and so on.

For years the Social Security payroll tax has just been going into general revenue so why is there any assurance that things will be any different in the future after this tax increase? There is no actual Social Security trust fund except on paper.

Lawmakers have found out that this trust fund racket is a good idea so now have proposed a windfall profits tax on big oil companies that will go into, guess what, a trust fund. Why won't that be raided as the Social Security trust fund was?

From my point of view, who cares because I probably won't be around to pay all these increased Social Security taxes. To those who will be, I wish you good luck.

My problem is that I do not see what entitlement can be stopped or curtailed. If you wish to limit the future rise in social security costs, you will have to mandate some form of saving. To do that there will have to be a change in the way that money is viewed in the society. I am all for that. The following link gives David Brooks' perspective. I think that fees for financial services need to be regulated, but not interest rates. These pay day loans are a drain on those that can least afford it. Who should be eligible for multiple credit cards should also be regulated.

If you want to have people be less dependent on government then you are going to make them more self reliant. I personally see no societal advantage to payday loans and their use as a financial management technique should be outlawed. The amount of money spent on this financial service would be a starting point for a potential savings plan.

What I am convinced of is that loans are only wise if the final result is to expand wealth. Loans for convenience are wasteful.

Again I am not against decreasing entitlements but modifications of our economic structure will have to precede these decreases..

The 'everything is ok now so we should tax the rich' argument is naive putting it lightly. The reasons for our immigration inflow today are far more complex than taxes, including issues with our border and signficant issues in Mexico, but you are kidding yourself if you think white collar workers will be migrating to the US when we enact the highest taxes in the world, and this country has a critical shortage of white collar workers in certain industries due to our failed education system. As an example, today the US and the UK have roughly equal tax rates. If we boost our tax rate 10% for the wealthy, you will see a massive move to London for financial services jobs, which is already taking jobs away from the US.

I would like to understand better your plan to generate economic growth. Enacting the highest tax rates in the world certainly is not one. Your philosophy seems to be 'tax the rich because we can' which is deeply flawed, emotional and counter-productive.

Once again, this is about degree. We already have the steepest progressive tax system in the world. The poorest quintile pay no taxes. The second poorst effective tax rate is less than 10%. For the middle class, it is less than 15%. The middle and lower class pay a very small tax rate compared to the rest of the world. soaking the rich is already occuring and has been for decades - when is this going to stop?

Spencer99: Thank you for proving your thesis is wrong. There is a net migration into our country and and according to you the taxes are the highest in the world. Some place has to be highest and the most desirable place to live should be that place. Do you disagree with that?

Spencer99 when it comes to taxes there is no such thing as fair share, it is what is best for the economy. The wealth of the richest has been expanding at an accelerated rate and we need to slow that down. They can afford it and therefore they should pay. When we need the investment capital in the country to rise we will have to lower the taxes. Don't give me an emotional argument for why taxes on the rich should not go up. That is dribble.

You make some good points, however, I come back to degree. We absolutely need to take care of our poor and needy. We need a social safety net. We need all the important services government provides. And the rich should disproportionately pay for them.

What we don't need, however, are the highest tax rates in the world. Our spending habits far outweigh our means. We need to stop entitlements to people who don't need them, and incent people to turn away from government, not rely on it. Over and over again, we hear about the need to raise taxes, but we never seem to want to engage in a real and painful discussion on cutting spending. Our political system is deeply flawed and set up that way.

Further, we have to be competitive in this global economy. We can't create a fiscal and tax policy based solely on our theoretical needs, it must take into account how we will compete and prosper globally. It is shameful that we are in a situation where we are contemplating the highest taxes in the world.

First, here is a comparison of global tax rates. We are the highest in the world, including the impact of state taxes (which is unique in the world to the US). Gee, I wonder why jobs keep moving overseas...

Right now, including social security, our highest marginal tax rate is around 40%, not including social security since it is now capped at 100k. With obama's plan, that goes up to 39.6+7.65+5.0 = 52.5%. Literally in the entire world, only Sweden (59%) and denmark 59%) are higher. If you assume the higher tax states like nyc, that goes to around 59% and becomes the highest tax rate in the world. But when you consider that both sweden and denmark have lower corporate tax rates, which means they can pay their employees more, that means we will have THE HIGHEST TAX RATES IN THE WORLD.

Unbelievable that we get posts here making these claims about the rich paying their fair share - it's already at extreme levels.

The United States Senate voted to extend Social Security Benefits to Illegal Aliens beginning in 2008. The following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.

Do you social-commies remember that the idea behind social security was for each of us to "put a little bit away" for ourselves? The insidious side of government programs and the "help" they offer is they produce people like you that dismiss the fundamental truths.

"Full" retirement benefits for all shouldn't be society's responsibility and social security was never meant to provide that. Politicians on both sides have convoluted the entire concept from day one until they turned it into the unsustainable mess it is now. But the social-commies feel bad about it and since they have "success envy", they want to take their anger out on the people that produce.

Change the system to make it sustainable. The government shouldn't keep promising to give people what it can't provide. That doesn't mean it has the never ending right to keep taking more from the hard working producers.

We are not all wall street executives. Some of us work our asses off to provide a good life for ourselves.

My favorite part is that for people that have worked hard and saved (all considered rich by the class envies), they will be taxed on 85% of their SS benefits once received. So yes, I can see why the social-commies think they should pay more now too.

Spencer99, there is no right or wrong formula for taxes that will hold for all time. Right now the balance sheets for the corporations are in a healthy state. The wage gap between the wealthy and the poor has been expanding rapidly under Bush. At this time it is appropriate to tax the wealthy more heavily. There will however be times when that will not be the case. What Bush did in 2003 was stupid economics, the tax cut should only have been at the lower end of the wage scale and temporary. If you tax too much you discourage enterprise. If you tax too little you do not have funds to pay for a well functioning FDA, OShA and other regulatory bodies. You have to tax wisely which means that you can't hold to any economic ideology rigidly.

We are going to need to cut spending if we want to reduce deficits. Obama proposes that the Iraq war is an excellent place to start. McCain will cut services to the people which in fact means the neediest people. Obama's judgement is better.

Our government has deteriorated greatly in the last eight years and our economic health is alarmingly more fragile. This country did much better under conditions of decreasing deficits and finally surpluses when Clinton was president. We can't at this time hope to return to that but we are going to have to do something to move in that direction. Righting the wrongs of the Bush administration is a step in that direction but economic policy will have to be flexible based on the health of our economy and that of the rest of the world.

Obama has been called a leftist but on economics I do not see that. I think he is non ideological and therefore more of a centrist. Mc Cain has a more ideological approach and since Obama does not agree with McCain, the uncritical thinking members of the right call him a leftist. Edwards and to a somewhat lesser extent Sen Clinton were leftists. The reason Sweeney of the AFL-CIO does not like Obama's choice for Chief Economic Advisor is that he is too centrist..

I suggest people do some analysis of how income tax rates have impacted behavior in cities across the country as an analogy to what is going to happen if we materially raise taxes. The statistics are astounding. Take Philadelphia - it has a high combined state and city tax rate, and it's employment base has dwindled for decades. This has caused the city to raise tax even more to compensate, creating a never ending 'death spiral'.

Why do people think so many jobs have left washington dc for the suburbs, and it was only after massive tax incentives were put in place that people started moving back?

why do people think texas has continued to see some of the strongest job growth in US? (texas has no state income tax)

Why has the population of NYC continued to decrease even though we just went through a huge financial services boom?

Why is North Carolina doing well?

Now - let's consider areas outside the US.

The point is, we are seriously underestimating the mobility of people in this country, and once the immigration train stops, and people start to move out of the US, we are in serious, serious trouble. We must, must have attractive corporate and individual income tax rates to attract capital and talent into this country. Enacting the highest marginal tax rates in the world is not the way to promote growth.

Just a thought, but whoever said that that Taxes should be considered Dues is an idiot...

when you pay dues you're giving money to someone to provide a service, yes, the country does that, BUT you're not giving a country club dues to then turn around and give it to the bum that's sitting outside so that he can afford a meal or buy crack.

You're paying for a service, you're not paying for the bum outside, with these taxes all we're doing is paying for the bum outside (welfare) I don't mind taxes at all, they're a necessary resource for our country, but I want to decide how it's spent, I don't want them giving it to the undeserving citizens that tell the government that they need it because they blew all their own money on something else..

If the fact that someone slips up in a sentence and says the wrong words, then he is a moron, then i guess McCain is a moron for saying "beer" instead of "barr" or mixing up the fundalmenalist groups in iraq.

If the only thing you have against Obama is that 57 states thing, you should reconsider debating for McCain.

McCain does this exact thing, mistates facts/names/places, at least once a speech. I find it funny that Obama is the better man and takes McCains speeches for what he thinks McCain thinks, not the face value of what is said. Otherwise we would see daily smears of McCain, and is lack of way with words.

"I don't need someone to try to prove me wrong, because you won't, that's not possible with the numerous studies by the smartest economists in the nation. All I want is someone to point out to me WHY someone thinks Obama can actually change the bottom line of human economic behaviour. "

So poor people spend money on things that are overseas.

First, in order to spur economy you need to spend money. So the rich people holding onto their money will NOT help the economy.

Second, the money spent is on foreign goods. I love that you mentioned this, because Obama will fix this issue with two ideals.

First off, give the poor more money so they spend more of it, and increase the economy. But before that, increase taxes on the companies that purchase or outsource to foreign countries and reduce taxes on those who keep labor in the country.

Then the cheapest products will be the products that are made in america. This will cause the foreign companies to cut costs, which will reduce quality of products, and once again make their products seem less appealing to america.

Considering that america is the number one consuming nation in the world, the second that we, as a nation, reduce our purchases outside the country, the second our country will rebound from this economic slump.
"

That's great, but consider that someone spending a dollar in the economy only puts a little bit in a bunch of peoples pockets, cycling about 50-70% out of the country in most cases. Investing it keeps 100% here, while earning interest, eventually making 120% of what it previously was, again becoming LOANS to those that need it, helping them afford houses and cars and food.

which would you rather have? a kid getting paid an extra 5 cents at mcdonalds and then paying 30% interest on loans? or making the same amount and paying 10% interest on loans? He'll be much better in the end with a 10% interest rate, especially when he's deterred from buying a home with the higher interest rate, making him more likely to live on the street.

I'm sorry but your logic is flawed, and if Obama is really going to fix the US consumption of foreign products...great, but do that first.

AND there's a problem with limiting US consumption of foreign goods if you really want to get into it. The problem is that we're raising our taxes on corporations and business owners, this is a HUGE incentive for them to move overseas where labor is cheaper. If taxes stay the same they aren't very likely to go overseas just because of cheaper labor, but if they aren't getting taxed on their profits they are VERY likely to move overseas (thanks for outsourcing Democrats). Basically killing our economy even more than they already do. So not only are you driving our major businesses out of the country, you're then keeping them from doing business in our country. After that's done, who's going to make these products that you want to consume? Yeah there will be a few small American based companies that can produce the goods, but with tremendously higher prices on imports the demand for American goods will rise, and what happens when demand rises for American goods? they will expand, what happens when they expand and become huge? they get taxed even higher, and they then have the incentive of moving overseas where they can make more money. It's a huge cycle that has proven true in the last few years, yet for some reason you guys think that a Democratic leader can make it work...It's simply ignorance and not learning a thing from the past OR economic policies.

Ron M said "I think that there should be an additional steep social security tax when the highest paid executive is paid one thousand times more than the lowest paid employee. This should not apply to small businesses, only to large corporations. Something needs to be done about outrageous executive pay. It should not apply to bonuses that are based on a strict performance standard but should to any other bonuses."

So let me get this straight - you want the government to legislate a steep tax on bonsues that are not related "strict performance standards" What a novel idea that is - do you want to write the performance standard for us? Is congress now going to mandate the appropriate criteria for a performance bonus? is it sales? net income? stock price performance? ROI? what about the success of an M&A deal? what about if a company loses market 100bp of market share but was projected to lose 300bp?

This is amazing, we actually have people really believing that government should be in the business of determining what an appropriate bonus is in the private sector and if it is deemed non-performance related, it is taxed!!! What a great tool that is to incent people to work here!

The real issue in this country is that some people either choose not too, or are unable to produce enough income to survive, let alone save for retirement.

If we could create a way to support these people without taxing anyone, I would be all for it.

But till then, we can't let Americans suffer in old age. We can't let Americans starve to death. I am not saying they have to live like kings, but we need to create enough of a backup so these people get taken care of.

I'm sure alot of people will say this will cause more people to slack off, and not save money for retirement. I say that if we only supply enough SS relief to create an enviroment where these people and eat, sleep, and shower, then the people that want more will save. The people that don't can live in third-rate retirement homes with poor food(although still food) and poor acomidations(although still a roof and a bed.)

You can lead a horse to water....
You can show a man how to save for retirement....

Someone wrote "Well, youi are wrong already. They pay taxes, but they only pay the SS tax up to 102,000 dollars of their income.

Why should someone making 250,000+ pay the same SS tax as someone who makes less then half of that?"

Thank your for your constructive counter-argument and you make a good point. If the only taxes we paid were social security, then I would support your position. However, there are two critical issues to understand:

a) We are in a situation now where the 'rich' pay 3x the effective federal tax rate of the middle class. Most people view social security as an additional tax, so once this is enacted, 'rich' people will be paying the higest marginal tax rates in the world including social security

b) the core reason income on social security is capped is because it was intended to correlate with the maximum benefits because it is supposed to be a retirement system not a tax. If we enact obama's proposal, we are conceding the payments into the system by the 'rich' will far exceed any benefits. That is called a tax, not an investment account. So, let's call it what it is, then we are back to point a - a massively progressive system with highest marginal tax rates in the world. What a great economic incentive system we are setting up in this global economy!

Q5: Is it true that members of Congress do not have to pay into Social Security?

A: No, it is not true. All members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Federal judges, and most political appointees, were covered under the Social Security program starting in January 1984. They pay into the system just like everyone else. Thus all members of Congress, no matter how long they have been in office, have been paying into the Social Security system since January 1984.
1) Executive and judicial branch employees hired before January 1, 1984 were given a one-time irrevocable choice of whether to switch to Social Security or stay under the old CSRS
Employees of the legislative branch who were not participating in the CSRS system were mandatorily covered, regardless of when their service began. Those who were in the CSRS system were given the same one-time choice as employees in the executive and judicial branches.

3) All federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984 are mandatorily covered under Social Security--the CSRS system is not an option for them.
They also are eligible for Medicare!!

Instead of spouting off about tax rates==Look it up:

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAn individual's marginal income tax bracket depends upon their income and ... As of 2007, there are six tax brackets for ordinary income (ranging from 10% ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States - 89k -
I live in an urban area with kids and $250L a year is enough funds. Give up some of your toys.
S.S. would be fine if the GOV. did not "borrow" from it. Borrow implies paying back and sadly that NEVER happens.
As for Obama & taxes he will review and does have finacial advisors to sort out a plan that is fair to all.

I frankly think that this is a great plan. Two hundred and fifty thousand is the top 1.5%. This figure should be inflation indexed. This is long overdo.

I think that there should be an additional steep social security tax when the highest paid executive is paid one thousand times more than the lowest paid employee. This should not apply to small businesses, only to large corporations. Something needs to be done about outrageous executive pay. It should not apply to bonuses that are based on a strict performance standard but should to any other bonuses.

In truth, the average person making over $250k / yr is a hard working normal person who pays taxes like anyone else. In fact, enacting the highest marginal tax rates in the world will only hurt those people, while the tax scam folks will always find a way.

Spencer99,

Well, youi are wrong already. They pay taxes, but they only pay the SS tax up to 102,000 dollars of their income.

Why should someone making 250,000+ pay the same SS tax as someone who makes less then half of that?

What Obama is suggesting is that the richer people pay the same ration of income to tax as the people under 100,000 a year.

You can not argue that this is not a fair idea.

As stated before in these posts, "why should someone pay less percent tax when they buy a BMW as when i buy a big mac?"

Sales tax is 6% in my state, if you spend $1 of $1,000,000 dollars, it is still 6%. Why should SS tax be cheaper the more you get?

Casapar wrote 'In fact, there should be no top bracket; a fair tax function would approach 100% asymptotically'

yeah, that makes a ton of sense! Let's cap income! What a way to incent people to work and innovate! let's be the only country in the world to have a 100% tax rate and see if anyone leaves! let's see how many companies want to stay in the US when nobody wants to work here! great tax plan that will really help improve our lives!!

Lets just turn fully to socialism now and make this country a complete welfare state(per Casper). Viva class warfare!! Redistribution is the answer!! At least we would all be equal. Nobody would be motivated to work anymore.

Firm wrote: "There's a big difference between having a tax bracket, and actually paying it.

Given the constant parade of incompetent CEO's raking in huge payouts, offshore tax haven trials, and "golden parachutes" and even "golden coffins", this is a meager improvement. I actually, even as a former Republican, hope Obama does far more. And it will cost me some. Small price to pay.
"

Are you suggesting that anyone who makes $250k or more has golden parachutes, offshore tax havens etc? Where did you get this information? You throw out these outrageous broad based claims that are totally false, which seems to imply everyone who makes over $250k/yr is evil, and people actually start to believe it.

In truth, the average person making over $250k / yr is a hard working normal person who pays taxes like anyone else. In fact, enacting the highest marginal tax rates in the world will only hurt those people, while the tax scam folks will always find a way.

It appears that we are heading into a period in which many people seem to just hate the concept of people making a lot of money if they are not making it themselves. They assume that everyone who has money is evil and needs to give it back to the government. There are plenty of countries in the world where socialism exists and will welcome this mentality.

Obama's plan makes perfect sense. Why do I have the feeling that MCCain will just take the low road and attack this proposal as a tax hike without proposing his own reasonable plan. I think Americans are sick of the status quo and will see this as a reasonable way to address SS shortfalls. I really hope we don't demagogue this issue.

"I don't need someone to try to prove me wrong, because you won't, that's not possible with the numerous studies by the smartest economists in the nation. All I want is someone to point out to me WHY someone thinks Obama can actually change the bottom line of human economic behaviour. "

So poor people spend money on things that are overseas.

First, in order to spur economy you need to spend money. So the rich people holding onto their money will NOT help the economy.

Second, the money spent is on foreign goods. I love that you mentioned this, because Obama will fix this issue with two ideals.

First off, give the poor more money so they spend more of it, and increase the economy. But before that, increase taxes on the companies that purchase or outsource to foreign countries and reduce taxes on those who keep labor in the country.

Then the cheapest products will be the products that are made in america. This will cause the foreign companies to cut costs, which will reduce quality of products, and once again make their products seem less appealing to america.

Considering that america is the number one consuming nation in the world, the second that we, as a nation, reduce our purchases outside the country, the second our country will rebound from this economic slump.

"Fully eliminating the payroll tax cap would provide more than enough income to keep Social Security solvent for more than 75 years; Obama's current proposal would fall short of that goal, the adviser acknowledged."

Why is Obama pussy-footing around with the SS tax cap. Just eliminate it the damn thing. It never made sense in the first place. In a fair system, taxes are paid for the general, not the individual, good.

But this should be only a starting point in getting rid of the Reagan-Bush I-Bush II welfare for the super-rich tax system and building a fair one. Next step should be elimination of the capital gain NON-tax. Why should speculators pay less tax on the money they make sitting on their a___s than workers pay on EARNED income, money they earn with the sweat of their brows? Next, let's get the top-bracket rates up where they belong. The present 33% max rate is ridcculously low. In fact, there should be no top bracket; a fair tax function would approach 100% asymptotically.

There are many other abuses in our thoroughly corrupted tax system which need correction but the above will do for starters.

And oh yes, I see the "flat-tax" cranks are still with us. And so are the flat earth people. In fact, they're often the same people.

Your comments are right out of a socialist playbook. Surely the 'rich' people in CT you are referring to donate literally billions per year, much higher per capital than Mississippi. your little play on statistics (% of giving) is by definition socialist. So, if someone from Mississippi gives $500 to charity from their $20,000 of income per year, pr 2.5%, but a wealthy hedge fund owner gives $1m in the same year (2,000x more than the person from Mississippi) out of the $30m he/she made, you call that person cheap and selfish, while I call that amazing and generous, as it will have an enourmous impact on people's lives. Further, statistics show that when that person dies, a huge percent of what is left will be donated to charity. In fact I could turn around your silly stats and say I bet the people in CT donate a much much higher % to charity via when they die than the person in Mississippi and then foolishly claim the Mississippi person only cares about their families when they die.

If you give a dollar to the poor, what will they do? They spend nearly 90% of it (actually more..) and it trickles through the economy without an impact. What happens if you give a rich man a dollar? He spends maybe 5% of it, investing the rest. What happens to the investment? It earns interest in a bank, where they can distribute loans. The more money the Banks have, the more loans they can distribute, the more loans they distribute, the less interest rates will be, and thus the safer it is to take out loans, making it easier for people to take them out, again giving more money to banks, and then back to the people. One of the most simple economic concepts.

Now take this money away from the rich and give it to the poor, the poor spend it, the majority goes overseas, the banks end up with less and less money, interest rates rise, the poor people that took out loans are losing their houses because they can't afford the interest rates, poverty ensues, and then thrown into the welfare system, where the rich pay to support them and allow them to live day to day.

Which sounds better to you?

Seriously I wonder what these Democratic/socialist economics are thinking and IF they ever went to school and studied economics because they seem to be oblivious to the most simple of principles."

and am not at all surprised that no one can refute it, it's a proven fact, one for which Obama...and all democrats...are fighting for the second of the two outcomes.

I don't need someone to try to prove me wrong, because you won't, that's not possible with the numerous studies by the smartest economists in the nation. All I want is someone to point out to me WHY someone thinks Obama can actually change the bottom line of human economic behaviour.

There have been several comments about "10% of the population paying 90% of the taxes," which is inflated to begin with. This is a bs stat because it does not take into account what percentage of assets and income that 10% controls. The bottom line is that the top 10% in this country pay 68% of all taxes, but control approximately 70% of all the wealth (with about 50% of all income). This occurs because the tax system is very favorable to those people that have money to invest. So all the whining about this soak the rich stuff is a joke.

Obama's position seems reasonable if we want to prevent the collapse of social security for the baby boomers and all the problems that would bring. However, one of his tax advisors has to tell him that in order for this to really work he would have to raise the age to take full social security benefits to 67 or 68 because people are living longer.

Tim,
I totally agree. Moreover:
1 Wright did TREMENDOUS service to the country.

2 He performed several successful BLACK-WHITE marriages.

But the GOP hate mongers/ bottom feeders NEED to spread hatred to STAY in the race.
===============
OBAMA AND RACISM
Obama attended Wright's "church" for nearly 20 years. Why?
1. He tolerates racism against whites.
2. Like Wright, he too is a racist.
Anyone know another reason?
The real reason. He tolerates all people, even those that 1% of the time spout racisty remarks. Just because Wright said 1 min of something negative in his lifetime as a preacher, does not mean the other 99% of his speakes are negative.
If you think he preached hate for 20 years, you are a fool.
Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2008 3:08 PM

:::::::::::::::::
You need some education. We are talking about taxing SS not giving it away.

1) No representation without taxation. You don't pay you don't get to vote to make others pay.
2) All hard working illegal's get to stay. Instead, line up the deportation buses and fill them with the lazy Americans with their hands out unwilling to work. Take THEM back to South America to live in "real" poverty for a few years. They will be begging to get back in.
3) If you aren't legal and you give birth here, your baby shouldn't get to be a citizen! Does it make any sense to anybody why somebody that is illegally in the states gets to create a US citizen?
4) Empty all of the hospitals and schools in California, Texas etc... of all those illegal's (I'm sorry - I mean undocumented future citizens) that are sucking taxpayer dollars from us because they can't get decent schooling or medical treatment in their own country. It turns out that because of all of them, WE AMERICANS can't get decent schooling or medical treatment now! If I wanted to live like that, I would go to live in South America myself!!
5) Term limits are the beginning of the solution. Forget liberal and conservative. It has nothing to do with that. It is about the established status quo of our single party system in Washington (the democrats and the republicans are ONE party in case you didn't know). Twelve years for senate 12 years for house. That's it. We need a referendum. Our fine elected leaders certainly won't call for this themselves.
6) Social Security and Medicare are excellent examples of what we should NEVER do again. Make promises in the past using people's money from the future and say it is the best thing we've ever done! Let's embrace the failure and by all means sustain it at any cost! (See reference to single part system above). We should change our motto in the states to "the truth shall never be told"
7) Social Security and Medicare (should I even mention Medicaid?) are excellent examples of government sponsored class warfare. You force the majority of American citizens to pay for excellent benefits for the privileged minority and many of the people that are forced to pay can't afford to pay for the same benefits for themselves!
8) Force young people to pay for programs that are unrealistic and unsustainable and never tell them the truth. (This is an excellent example of the government's contempt for the under and unrepresented minority - the youth of America.) Many young people rightly doubt whether there will be any benefits when it is their turn to retire (there won't be). Can you say GOVERNMENT SPONSORED CLASS WARFARE? Ridiculous hypocrisy brought to all of us by our fat cat protected pensioned, protected health care coverage elected leaders.
Obama is not change. McCain is not change. Our system is broken. Until we admit that and are willing to do something about it (until our cowardly selfish politicians are willing to), no real change can ever occur.
There is so much more but I've got to get back to work! The president just saw me writing this e-mail..............

Anyway, It is sad to see someone as smart as Obama going the simple-minded way of these tax considerations. There are many other things that can and should be done instead which would not be disincentative and would also be fairer. Is it so difficult to implement a flat tax? Is it such a radical idea to disempower and reduce the size of the IRS? What billions of dollars could be saved? What billions could be saved in a rational and nationally managed healthcare system? And should we be so radical, so crazy and absolutely mad as to question the trillions (and that is not an exaggeration) of dollars (hundreds of billions not properly accounted for by mandated Congressional auditing) we continue to give to the Pentagon?

Taxes, while correctly levied to protect the nation, manage basic services such as healthcare, education and infrastructure costs and maintenance, have in the United States been imposed to create and maintain, 1) protection for the wealthiest, 2) corporate welfare with all kinds of subsidies, 3) entitlements to a middle-class that would not be necessary if the proper collection and spending of taxes was in place and most lamentably 4) the establishment of the largest, most pervasive, multi-layered and profligate government structures in the history of the world - the true Leviathan.

Both Democrats and Republicans can take credit for this. But we now must at least allow a young, perhaps visionary, although inexperienced politician to publicly vet his ideas on taxes and hope that he will choose real change if and when the time comes for him to assume true leadership.

1. He tolerates racism against whites.
2. Like Wright, he too is a racist.

Anyone know another reason?

The real reason. He tolerates all people, even those that 1% of the time spout racisty remarks. Just because Wright said 1 min of something negative in his lifetime as a preacher, does not mean the other 99% of his speakes are negative.

i buy no means am rich, my wife and combined dont make a hundred thousand a year, i served my country in iraq, i ws a 19 delta and very proud of it, I dont need obama to raise taxes on the people who employ me, these people give us jobs that feed our children, and keep a roof over my head, so why do you people think it is a good idea to tax these people more and take away the acentive to stay in the u.s and keep giving us jobs, less taxes all around are the answer, for EVERYONE that includes the rich, good for them that they were succesfull, this is america and if you want to you can do anything, i dont want to hear that people cant get educations if they want to, or there kids cant, get two jobs if thats what it takes, democrats want free handouts, thats why almost all welfare cases vote for them vause they more free stuff is on the way if they get elected, im proud of my country, i am proud that i served my country, i dont want it ruined by some two year senator with almost no experiance,mcdonalds requries more then two years experiance to run one of there stores and you people want to let this amature run the whole country, i dont get it, and by the way social security and the way it is setup was created by the democrate party,

Just like, If (gov't) make(s) money it's (theirs) and the (you) STEAL it!!

Posted by: Tim | June 13, 2008 2:03 PM

=========================================

The Gov't DOESN'T make money, it STEALS it you dope!!

Get off this board and while you're at it get the hell off my planet you imbecile!!

Damn idiot ObamaBOTS

Chevy and that's "King Chevy" to you buster!!

Posted by: | June 13, 2008 2:23 PM

King Chevy, the monarch, would steal his taxes if he was in charge. And that is because he wouldn't use the tax money to help out the people he is taking it from. Considering the gov't uses taxes to replace roads, build bridges, bail out business, and keep the economy rolling proofs that they are not stealing the money, but being payed to do a service.

I do not think that the gov't uses the tax money wisely, but i also can not argue that my home would be safe from other countries if my tax money did not support our troops.

You Chevy, are either sadly mentally retarded, or you are paid to comment with so poorly informed comments.

I wouldn't typically post here, but I have to agree somewhat with RightPOV regarding several of his points, even though they were somewhat melodramatic. People need to understand that they are voting for the exact same thing in this supposed "two party" system. If you, a unit of what is the "American People", really want change then you're going to start meeting the requisites of change.

Think outside of the box, try new solutions. Obama and McCain are still "more of the same". Both candidates are still running a public relations campaign. Their trophy is power. How many candidates have you gotten behind? One, two, three? Five?

How many of them have changed your life?

Change starts with the individual. We have to consider electing candidates that were not reared on the tits of this corrupt beast we refer to as the "political process".

The fundamental flaws of our system aren't addressed by this cycle. If we don't break it I fear that our nation will collapse upon itself.

Learn about your government, and set out to change what you perceive to be flawed.

If you give a dollar to the poor, what will they do? They spend nearly 90% of it (actually more..) and it trickles through the economy without an impact. What happens if you give a rich man a dollar? He spends maybe 5% of it, investing the rest."

Yes, in Chinese slave labor, offshore tax havens, third world dictators, and the latest yacht, designer dress, or "call girl."

I don't know which makes me sicker: A limousine liberal Democrat or a Country Club Republican. Both are nausesating.

On the subject of giving, what point are you making? It is well know that Americans are the most generous givers in the world. All you have to do is ask the head of fundraising at most major, internationally recognized charities and they will tell you the donor list is dominated by Americans. Your digression about tax policy / incentives is missing the point - several countries in the world have the same policy. You seem to really resent wealthy people and assume they are all evil. There are several socialist countries in the world you are free to move to, in the meantime I am going to keep working hard and hope I get rich here someday - boy am I lucky to live somewhere where I actually have that opportunity.

Isn't being rich good enough of a reason to work hard? I didn't think we needed more incentive then that. What happens to the people that can't get, or are not capable of, a better education? Screw them right?

Tim which is it, poor people can't get ahead or go to school or they can even if they come from a single mother and have to take out student loans.

Posted by: | June 13, 2008 2:17 PM

I really wish i could answer you, but i have no idea what your questions is. Please rewrite your statement in the form of a question. Just a suggestion, break it down into a few question so that you do not have to use "or" so many times.

Kija is right. The poorest state, Mississippi, has the highest percentage of charitable contribution nearly every year. You would assume it would be Connecticut, right? No, the tightest folks you ever met are in Greenwich, working up another loophole or hedge fund.

The working class man and woman will give you the shirt off their back. The rich will give you the shaft, or NAFTA SHAFTA. (Dem or Rep). The noveau riche of America are sickening.

Obama's proposal shows yet one more time that he is an empty suit who shouldn't even be in the Senate, much less a candidate for president.

None other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very careful to make sure that Social Security did NOT become a welfare program. FDR knew that, if there were no relationship between Social Security taxes paid and benefits received, support for the program would slowly start to unravel. Every Democratic president since FDR knew and understood this. Obama doesn't. He's an empty suit. The Democrats will rue the day that they mistreated Hillary in favor of a candidate with little experience and no accomplishments.

If you give a dollar to the poor, what will they do? They spend nearly 90% of it (actually more..) and it trickles through the economy without an impact. What happens if you give a rich man a dollar? He spends maybe 5% of it, investing the rest. What happens to the investment? It earns interest in a bank, where they can distribute loans. The more money the Banks have, the more loans they can distribute, the more loans they distribute, the less interest rates will be, and thus the safer it is to take out loans, making it easier for people to take them out, again giving more money to banks, and then back to the people. One of the most simple economic concepts.

Now take this money away from the rich and give it to the poor, the poor spend it, the majority goes overseas, the banks end up with less and less money, interest rates rise, the poor people that took out loans are losing their houses because they can't afford the interest rates, poverty ensues, and then thrown into the welfare system, where the rich pay to support them and allow them to live day to day.

Which sounds better to you?

Seriously I wonder what these Democratic/socialist economics are thinking and IF they ever went to school and studied economics because they seem to be oblivious to the most simple of principles.

My problem with using $250k is that these people are viewed as rich. While 250k is a good salary, 250k in a major urban area with kids in school is actually pretty middle class. When you are trying to raise taxes on the rich, why not raise taxes on the actual rich. Say $1 million or more in income.

Obama's proposal shows yet one more time that he is an empty suit who shouldn't even be in the Senate, much less a candidate for president.

None other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very careful to make sure that Social Security did NOT become a welfare program. FDR knew that, if there were no relationship between Social Security taxes paid and benefits received, support for the program would slowly start to unravel. Every Democratic president since FDR knew and understood this. Obama doesn't. He's an empty suit. The Democrats will rue the day that they mistreated Hillary in favor of a candidate with little experience and no accomplishments.

Look, folks, this is not like we are back in the days of the King of England taxing the crap out of us just so he can get richer and buy his wife another diamond tiara.

Modern societies have taxes simply in order to have a better environment for their people to live in.
The only thing I have against the existing tax system is that people are not pushy enough about demanding that something worthwhile be done with their tax money.
Let's by all means squeeze the crap out of the people who are supposed to be doing that for us.

Otherwise, just pay your taxes and enjoy a better life.

If you earn more than a quarter of a million a year, you have money to spare, so be a good American and be nice to those less fortunate. It's only human.

"the rich are the largest contributors to charity"
This statement is FALSE in just about every way. As a percentage of income, a person's contribution to charity goes up as their income goes down. The rich are paltry givers compared to the poor who give a much higher percentage of income.

Moreover, the rich give a tremendous amount of charity to themselves. They give to private family foundations that largely exist to dodge taxes. They give to charitable clubs that provide them services - something other people pay membership fees for, but they make donations so they can take it off their taxes. They give to the arts, museuems, symphonies which they attend. They give to colleges and private schools their children attend. Wealthy philanthropy is by and large a self-indulgent self-gifting at the expense of the tax payers. The wealthy aren't giving to rebuild NEw Orleans or Myanmar - that money comes from ordinary people.

Of course, there are exceptions, but by and large, if a wealthy person doesn't get more benefit from reduced taxes, member privileges, children's education or cultural event tickets than they put in, they wouldn't give a penny. As a class, there is not a more greedy, grasping self-involved, group of people with an overweening sense of entitlement and privilege anywhere on the planet than the millionaires of the United States.

"Progressive" is the one thing that SS tax is not. It is a second income tax on wage earners, i.e. it falls mainly on those who have to work for a living as opposed to those who sit back and live on unearned proceeds from equity holding and who pay half the lowest earned income tax bracket - go figure the fairness in that. Because it is capped to an absolute amount, SS tax is incredibly regressive. Most workers (i.e. the bulk of the population) pay 13% of their income directly through deduction and silently through employer contributions which de facto come out of salary paid. For rich people, the SS tax amount drops to less and less per cent of total income - the rich for all intents and purposes don't pay SS tax relative to their income compared to the poor working stiff. It's about time the big boys starting kicking in a bit of what they have taken from society.

I'm not a republican. You don't have to be a fiscal conservative to recognize that Obama's extravagant, multifaceted, creative and aggressive tax agendas, where some new soak-the-rich idea emerges ever few days, is class warfare.
It will cripple the economy to rush in during a recession or period of damaged economy, and impose a lot of taxes. That's an anti-stimulus, the opposite of Fed Rate cuts.
Obama's been hanging around with Jimmy Carter too much. He's got a recipe for stagflation-creation brewing.
His notions of social welfare justice should wait until the banking system and economy have stabilized.

Asper Girl, I'll take you at your word that you are not a Republican but you're obviously not an economist either.

Good point by the poster who said 97% of the posters should agree with Obama. Why do people vote against their own economic interest? We have been fed the myth from Ann Rand or someone that without the super-rich we would all perish - in my own experience the rich, especially CEOs and our managment class, they are more like parasites on the back of professionals and the working class - I mean they don't produce any useful goods or services and the certainly don't work very hard.

One clear problem with Obama's proposal is all new payroll taxes raised would create a greater surplus. This would delay the time when the SS surplus became a deficit, which is now estimated to be 2017 or so. However, all additional funds now generated that are not used for SS benefits go into the general fund . . . and are spent. Additional revenue simply creates greater temptation to find ways to spend the funds and, when the surplus does eventually disappear, creates a greater obligation for the US Treasury . . . meaning US taxpayers.

Well, I am glad to learn that social security is socialism. I'm sure that my grandparents and parents never realized that they were socialist or that it was socialism that kept them from being poor in their old age. I wonder how many of the anti-socialists above have grandparents and parents living on social security, too? What a shame we'll ruin that program when McCain privatizes it with his ruinous private accounts.

"So Asper Girl, please tell us more; your party's political polices (or pretenses to use your words) wiped out a budget surplus and created the largest deficit in history. That qualifies your side to fix what you broke?"

I'm not a republican. You don't have to be a fiscal conservative to recognize that Obama's extravagant, multifaceted, creative and aggressive tax agendas, where some new soak-the-rich idea emerges ever few days, is class warfare.

It will cripple the economy to rush in during a recession or period of damaged economy, and impose a lot of taxes. That's an anti-stimulus, the opposite of Fed Rate cuts.

Obama's been hanging around with Jimmy Carter too much. He's got a recipe for stagflation-creation brewing.

His notions of social welfare justice should wait until the banking system and economy have stabilized.

I get so tired of wealthy people complaining about the working class. First, you would not be wealthy without the US Government ensuring that the markets are reliable and the banks exist, that there is an infrastructure, police, fire and everything that makes the world work. You could not hire enough private contractors to make an international market economy work. That is the work of governments - so, even if your education was private from pre-K though college, the very fact that you have wealth and it was not taken from you by someone bigger or stronger or with more guns is a product of government.

Many of you work in industries regulated by government. People buy your products believing they are safe thanks to government regulation. I could go on for days listing the ways you benefit from government, but know it's pointless because it isn't about anyone paying their fair share. It's about the parasitic nature of the very wealthy who reap the greatest benefits from society and then buy off Congress to avoid paying their fair share.

The wealthiest pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes and I am sick to death of the whining about the amount you pay. You pay a lot because you earn a lot. Shut up and pay your fair share and quit whining. The rest of us pay FICA on ALL our income and view you as privileged parasites who don't pay your share.

You get more from our government than the working class, you get more from our society than the working class and yet, as a percentage of income you are complete cheaters. Large portions of your income is exempt. You pay ridiculously low tax rates on investment income -

Think about it, you pay less taxes on money you don't labor for than people who actually work for a living.

I was going to comment on the article and ask a question or two that comes to mind, but after reading the idiot blogs on here, I refuse to get any further involved in this blog other than to tell you why i am not hangin around..

Obama's plan to shore up Social Security is just fine with me. Please note that many folks don't pay into the Social Security account anyways. So if we can get a few more dollars into the "retirement nestegg", it makes it better for those who will eventually take out their life long savings.

I would also like to see increased contributions into IRAs and ROTH IRAs. Both are excellent savings plans for us Boomers!

I imagine that some critics favor contributions to 401K plans because the funds are invested in stocks - a risky place. Social Security funds are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds - a safe place.

Thus, I feel Social Security is good for the masses, who really rely on a safe retirement account, after years of labor. For the wealthy class, Social Security may be less needed, assuming individuals have actually contributed. Self employeed "entrepreneurs" don't contribute to Social Security.

I told you it was just a matter of time before Obama people went to Obama's website for "information." They will be siting it constantly because they don't know much else and it's their bible. I won't stop using references like Hitler and Nazi because I do feel they add something to what I'm talking about and they come to mind when writing about Obama. He has clearly a Socialist, but probably Communist agenda. And as another poster mentioned, a class war is very possible. We could actually drive business and money out of the United States. I do know that his name was mentioned in the confiscated FARC computers that were seized in Colombia a few months ago that also implicated that Venezula with Hugo Chavez was supporting them. Obama has a lot of very unsavory and very Anti-American ties. He loves the crowd and mob mentality as long as he is at the center of it too. I never thought that the US would turn out this way or that people would fall for it so strongly. It is definitely based on dividing people into groups and pitting them against each other. Turn the people who make less than $250,000 a year against them and not aim for taxation without representation. Social Security taxes have genenerally been taken out of the higher incomes because they don't benefit from the program. The programs that have been the most succesfull have been when participation in mandatory but the benefits are well worth the participation. Can it be true for the taxes he's proposing on the people in this income bracket? Or his he trying to have the lower income people bully and intimidate them?

So Asper Girl, please tell us more; your party's political polices (or pretenses to use your words) wiped out a budget surplus and created the largest deficit in history. That qualifies your side to fix what you broke?

It would be interesting if someone could do a study that tries to quantitfy the number of poor people who are poor because they just didn't work hard/didn't take school seriously/etc vs those who were truly disadvantaged. This seems to be the core of a lot of disagreements on this board, and unfortunately, I suspect the answer would not make the democratic party look so good

So he has clarified his tax plan. Did he tell us why we need to raise taxes in the first place? You know, we never look at the other side of the coin - reducing expenses. We just pass these massive revenue give aways (like the recent farm bill and all the other bills stuffed full of pork) and no one ever looks at efficiency and eliminating old programs that haven't worked. Raising taxes without reasons makes as much sense as not vetting your presidential vetters.

Alan, the guy working the garbage truck is not expecting to live off of government programs. Maybe he/she was not born with insight like yours or something happened that pushed him so far down that no amount of hard work will get him out of the hole he is in. Alan, I sincerely hope you will never need government assistance or have to worry about getting a meal, or medicine or whatever, but the fact is that all kinds of circumstances lead to financial issues. Should we do our best to catch cheaters and gamers? Yes, and that goes for those stealing from the government or anyone else. The money to maintain some minimum level of stability has to come from somewhere. I just think that it has to come from people who have it.

>>Bob wrote: "When is enough going to be enough? So the highest marginal tax rates will be as follows: Federal 39.6% (even higher when phaseouts included), 6.2% social security (to matched by employer for a total of 12.4%), 7% or more in most state taxes (although deducted for federal taxes). So, the government fares very well: 53% in taxes and 47% for the taxpayer. This does not include city or real estate taxes,which easily can add 5%. Once again, when is enough going to be enough?"

You forgot the 28% capital gains tax. And after Obama's done writing out all of the exceptions, you can bet that will include any gains from the sale of your home, if there's any equity left in it.

What Obama is proposing is a massive transfer of assets from baby boomers to everyone else.

Spencer 99 wrote: "The 'rich' peole of the United States are already in a 45-50% marginal tax bracket depending on state taxes. That puts it in the top 10 highest tax rates in the industrialized world"

There's a big difference between having a tax bracket, and actually paying it.

Given the constant parade of incompetent CEO's raking in huge payouts, offshore tax haven trials, and "golden parachutes" and even "golden coffins", this is a meager improvement. I actually, even as a former Republican, hope Obama does far more. And it will cost me some. Small price to pay.

Isn't being rich good enough of a reason to work hard? I didn't think we needed more incentive then that. What happens to the people that can't get, or are not capable of, a better education? Screw them right?

Tim which is it, poor people can't get ahead or go to school or they can even if they come from a single mother and have to take out student loans.

What gibberish! I seldom agree with the so called conservatives that have spawned the econimic disaster we now share but I can respect a thoughtful arguement and the people who make them and still disagree. These posts are not about a plan but the man. Shame!

Rev. "God D@#! America" Wright. For nearly twenty years hussein was the disciple and avid follower and supporter of this racial bigot. hussein publicly praised wright on numerous occasions. hussein gave wright's church $26,000 in 2007, plus many thousands more previously. wright's vile, bigoted harangues against America, in general, and white Americans, in particular, illustrate the true foundation of hussein. As hussein said: "I could no more disown reverend wright than I could disown my ... grandmother."

Tony Rezko. Sleazy lobbyist, slum landlord, and hussein pal who is now a convicted felon. There have been numerous shady real estate deals between hussein and Rezko - including the lot next to hussein's Chicago mansion that was purchased by Rezko, then sold to hussein at a bargain-basement price. The Los Angeles Times reported that it had found that Rezko and his associates had given hussein "more than $200,000 in donations since 1995."

W. Ayers. Weathermen terrorist and hussein pal.

James Johnson Appointed by hussein to head vetting VP candidates. Per ABC News, 11Jun08, Johnson "represented a world of influence and special interests" and has received special treatment from the sleaziest sub-prime lender of them all: "Johnson had received $7 million in loans for mortgages with rates below market averages from a special account controlled by the CEO of Countrywide Financial Corp., Angelo Mozilo."

Why is the current Social Security surplus being used to reduce the budget deficit? Why can't the federal gov't balance its budget and leave the Social Security treasure alone? We working people pay into this to build up the fund, not to have it raided over and over. Raising the tax on wealthier folks might be a good idea, but if you're going to keep diverting the "surplus" into other government agencies, it's not honest and it's a fraud on the taxpayers who pay the social security tax to contribute to that fund and no other.

The 'rich' people of the United States are by far the largest contributors per capita to charities in the world.

The 'rich' peole of the United States are already in a 45-50% marginal tax bracket depending on state taxes. That puts it in the top 10 highest tax rates in the industrialized world

The Obama plan would create the highest marginal tax rates in the world, when you include the unlimited payroll tax, new tax rates, and rollback of the elimination of phaseouts for itemized deuctions and personal exemptions

I am really tiring of these emotional comments about the rich needing to help the poor. They do in the US, every day, at higher rates than anyone else in the world, precisely because they want to give back.

As evidenced by all the hype in these posts, the Obama plan is popular because it is easy to win elections on tax the rich.

When is enough going to be enough? So the highest marginal tax rates will be as follows: Federal 39.6% (even higher when phaseouts included), 6.2% social security (to matched by employer for a total of 12.4%), 7% or more in most state taxes (although deducted for federal taxes). So, the government fares very well: 53% in taxes and 47% for the taxpayer. This does not include city or real estate taxes,which easily can add 5%. Once again, when is enough going to be enough?

So Asper Girl,
you are obviously one in the camp who prefers a BSer than a thinker. We were dooped by the empty words of a master BSer in the debates leading to the last two elections. BSers prefer a forum to talk and talk without saying anything. Then stupid people who can't recognize that vote for them. McCain will only use townhall meetings to beat on his chest, not to say anything of substance.

How stupid do you sound, tax the poor more, how about an English Christmas at your house.
I see you've completely bought into that cheap and insulting Voodoo ideology. Success rewards itself, it doesn't need a tax incentive.

Thats the same logic that got us into this mess.

The middle class is strinking, the lion's share of small business' are started by middle class people with sound spending/ saving habits. The majority of job creation comes from this sector.

Now, are you telling me that the best way to bolster this economy is to give them more money to reinvest and grow their failing business.

Many people are saying this and I understand how you are looking at it, but that does NOT encourage competition.

How about making sure we maintain a stable middle class so as others will make that leap into business ownership and compete with those you say need those tax breaks.

Someone will get it done better, and be successful others will whine complain and go under, as they should.

That is a free and fair market, if you own a failing business then you have some hard decisions to make, maybe you should look for a new job.

I would fall into that income bracket, and I would rather my tax money go to someone whos needs it instead of someone running an antiquated business, and screaming for tax breaks.

InianaJerry wrote:
"Lot's of people work hard all of their life and never reach great financial heights."

Then maybe these people just need to work smarter. Just because you work hard is not a guarntee that you'll reach great financial heights. The guy that rides the back of the garbage truck works hard for his money but if he is not smart with what he does with that money of have the ambition to better himself (maybe start is own trash collection company with one truck, then two, then three, then...) he should not expect those who were smart to carry him along. Everyone is responsible for themselves and should not expect to live off of government programs.

"Exactly POV. I worked 2 jobs to put myself through a relatively small junior college, then worked for 4 years and then worked 2 part time jobs while putting myself through law school. I bust my butt every day to make the money I do and dont feel one bit sorry for it. I'm tired of people telling me why I should pay more taxes for the benefit of the country.

Posted by: DC | June 13, 2008 12:15 PM "

To DC:

I worked 2 jobs to put myself through a relatively small junior college, then worked for 4 years and then worked 2 part time jobs while putting myself through school. I (like you and most Americans)bust my butt every day to make the money I do and don't feel one bit sorry for it.

So, given the fact that most of us (myself and most Americans) are out here busting our butts everyday, just like you do, why should you be treated "special" just because you have a higher paying job.

iam said: "The conservatives here fail to realize one simple truth; It is just common decency for a stronger person to help a weaker one. But they frame it as "punishing success" as a wedge to split Americans and cause destruction so they can profit. It's just plain common decency. conservatism is soulless, without a conscience."

These outrageous comments are why obama will get elected, they really play into the poor. It is ridiculous to think conservatives don't want to help others. What we are debating is how much money the rich should pay. They already pay 3x the effective tax rate of the middle class. Our system is extremely progressive precisely because americans including the rich want to help those less fortunate. The obama plan will take marginal tax rates to the highest in the industrialized world. It is an extremist, populist tax plan put forth to get elected. Please stop these 'conservatives don't care about people in need' comments but that is not the case

If you make money it's YOURS and the Gov't STEALS it!! Dohhh
"
I also reccomend working off the books and bartering services to avoid paying taxes.

Working 1/2 a year just to pay taxes is disgusting and i'm encouring people to work around the system. Screw em!!

Chevy"

Grats! You just proved that you are the kind of person that cares only about himself. I wish we could single you people out so that we dont have to waste money sending police to your house when you are in danger, put out the fire that engulfs your house, or apply hospital care to your illnesses. Why waste the money.

Just like, If (gov't) make(s) money it's (theirs) and the (you) STEAL it!!

"Exactly POV. I worked 2 jobs to put myself through a relatively small junior college, then worked for 4 years and then worked 2 part time jobs while putting myself through law school. I bust my butt every day to make the money I do and dont feel one bit sorry for it. I'm tired of people telling me why I should pay more taxes for the benefit of the country.

Posted by: DC | June 13, 2008 12:15 PM "

To DC:

I worked 2 jobs to put myself through a relatively small junior college, then worked for 4 years and then worked 2 part time jobs while putting myself through school. I (like you and most Americans)bust my butt every day to make the money I do and don't feel one bit sorry for it.

So, given the fact that most of us (myself and most Americans) are out here busting our butts everyday, just like you do, why should you be treated "special" just because you have a higher paying job.

Why is it that people like you always repeat these broad generalizations that we need to have social nets to help the poor and the elderly? The vast majority of conservatives agree with that! The issue is 100% about degree. When does it end? Should the rich have a 90% marginal tax rate like in the 70s when our economic productivity was at an all time high an unemployment went through the roof? When does the progressiveness of the system stop? Conservatives accept the progressive system precisely because of what you are saying and accept the rich should be a disproportionately high amount. What we are talking about is taking our tax system from what is already a rare large step progressive tax system in the industrialized world to creating the highest marginal tax rates in the world. We are literally going in the opposite direction of other countries at a time when globalization is ever peaking and we must compete for talent and jobs. All this 'fairness' talk avoids the most important issue, which is how will we create economic growth and jobs. Extremist worldwide high taxes are not the way

So, if the people making $250k+ a year will be paying more social security taxes, will they receive more money from social security when they retire? I was under the understanding that the maximum social security benefit was capped relatively low. Will that cap be lifted for someone currently making $1M+ a year? If they are paying an additional 12% a year on the $750k above Obama's Hemorrhoid Donut, then effectively, their social security taxes have increased by almost 10x. Shouldn't their social security check increase by that much as well?

The conservatives here fail to realize one simple truth; It is just common decency for a stronger person to help a weaker one. But they frame it as "punishing success" as a wedge to split Americans and cause destruction so they can profit. It's just plain common decency. conservatism is soulless, without a conscience.

JBE wrote:
"So all of you make over $250,000 a year and you're pissed about paying your fair share?"

What I'm pissed about is that there is a limit establish that implies that people at a certain income level can afford more taxes there thereofore should pay more. I'd rather have no limit established so that people who make $20,000/yr pay the same % os SS taxes as those who make $2,000,000/yr as long as the people who make $2,000,000 get the appropriate SS payments for paying in the amounts they do. I don't want to pay more in SS taxes and end up getting the same monthly benefits as someone who paid less.

JBE wrote:
"You want the benefits of living in America that provides an opportunity for you to earn $250,000 per year, but you don't care enough about America to haul your own water?"

If I was able to use these benefits to make more than $250K/yr, why couldn't you? Why should I be required to pay more in taxes because you were either unable or uninterested in using the same benefits available to make more money. I would 2 jobs, one of them my own business, that results in me having to work 15-16 hrs a day, 7 days a week, just so I can build a comfortable rerirement for when I do retire. So you're darn right I get pissed when someone who works 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week, thinks that I should not get any more benefits than they do. There is nothing wrong with a 40 hr work week but those who work those hrs should not ask those who work more to get further ahead to pay more without receiving any additional benefits.

JBE wrote:
"You're rich. When was the last time you did ANYTHING for your country? "

How about military service in Viet Nam with two Purple Hearts, the last one resulting in a medical discharge and seizures from the head wound that I still occasionally suffer from today (36 years later). Did you spill your blood for your country?

Now yoiu get back to work and try and make something of yourself. If you have the desire and the drive, it is possible.

I'm ok with this but since the "rich" already pay for the vast amount of programs the "poor" and "middle class" use, how about instead of them blaming the "rich" people for all their ilk, how about a Thank you. I know, rich people suck, but without them, poor people would be alot poorer.

I'll be shocked if McCain gets Obama into more than 2 debates between now and November.

Obama's an idiot whenever he tries to stray from speechifying or reciting position papers written for him. He can't win debates and he can't agree to any kind of discussion of issues for that reason. For the last two weeks he's reeled around (1) foreign policy, (2) taxation and economics, and (3) why he has a notably lowlife washington insider on his VP staff. And this was not even in a live discussion/debate.

His incompetence becomes obvious as soon as he steps away from the teleprompter. McCain for the rest of the year will be like Clinton, asking for debates while Obama ducks them, and the whole time the media will be treating the clueless, policy-bumbling Obama like a prodigy.

I don't believe that the rich should be taxed for ALL of society's ills. I didn't intend to come off that way in my previous statement. I forgot to point out that with some social problems, it doesn't help with McCain voting AGAINST equal pay (which could help) because other rich aren't looking out for our fellow Americans. When that happens, I'm all for government intervening to help set things straight, that's all I'm saying people =)

I do believe that those who do not ship jobs overseas, I believe they deserve tax breaks. I agree that those who do otherwise, should be taxed out of this planet!

People MUST stop giving us this crap about how Obama will kill us by raisng our taxes.
We have had 8 good years of the opposite side's ideas on how to manage money...and see! ...I mean LOOK at what we have on our hands!!!We cannot be any worse off!!!!!!!!
It is the so called middle class and below that drives the economy, not the top 2-5% clique.The republicans had better get another line of argument for us as a nation to continue the same routine we have been on for the past 8 unfruitful and dum years.......

ummm, no one gave me anything, I worked for it, so no I should not be expected to give anything to anyone. If I want to, then great, if not to bad.

Also, where the heck is redneckville? It's a pretty rude thing to say. I assume you mean anywhere that is not DC. Well, let me tell you that there are jobs in redceckville and that the whole country doesn't move around DC. I understand cost of living, but me and my husband makes the same exact wage that we did in DC. SO THERE

Bottom line is the Gov't shouldn't be punishing success they should reward it with tax cuts to spur economic growth.

I know you ObamaBots are bright enough to understand that concept.

I'm in favor of raising taxes on the poor in hopes of stimulating them to improve themselves.

Chevy

Chevy

Posted by: Chevy

In a nutshell:

If you make money, you diserve to be given money.

If you make only a little money, you diserve to have more taken away.

Do the math. This system will only further expand the gross differences within our country. You basicly said that "the rich SHOULD get richer, and the poor SHOULD get poorer."

Isn't being rich good enough of a reason to work hard? I didn't think we needed more incentive then that. What happens to the people that can't get, or are not capable of, a better education? Screw them right?

I bet you beleive that the best way to get rid of the growing amount of homeless people is to not feed them, when they die the homeless population dies with them.

Republicans will attack this proposal as another example of Liberal Democrat party tax-and-spend nannyism. Also, it requires transfer payments from the haves to the have nots. We have a social insurance system in this country to provide some relief to the infirm and the elderly. It offends the sensibility of most of us that people without means are left with absolutely nothing: no place to live, no way to eat. Those who do well must support that system in thanks for a location in which their property rights are respected and an opportunity exists for them to make money. The people who object most strenuously are the people who put Bush/Cheney into office with mandates to reduce taxes on the wealthy, eliminate government regulation of businesses, and to rein in trial lawyers. Bush/Cheney was also tasked to make more secure the supply of petroleum to America. I support Obama's plan.

If we ran SS the way the government did we'd be in Levenworth. Didn't Geraldine Ferraro's husband borrow money from trust funds he was in charge of and putting in IOU's that he paid back. When it was discovered even though he paid it back he was sanctioned for neglegence of his fuduciary duties. That said. Our goverment was set up so that we wouldn't have a very wealthy class and that the more money a person made the more taxes they paid.

The founding fathers did not want to create an aristocratic society like in Europe where money was in the hands of 20% of the people and it was handed down from generation to generation. You had your station in life and were stuck there. They wanted every individual to be able to achieve the American dream and then when they died the governemt would take most of their assets so that they could pass on limited amounts to they're heirs thus eliminating the wealthy.

Whomever the person is that said I was brainwashed by Reagan humors me because this person seems to be pretending that social security is their retirement egg rather than putting away money on their own.

I would gladly agree to take zero social security when I retire and STILL pay into the system as it is currently structured, so long as the tax rates never go up.

I am tired of these broad-based emotional statements about the 'rich' needing to pay their fair share etc as a rationalization for wanting to enact the hight marginal tax rates in the industrialzied world. Once again, it's about degree. The resistance to this is not a lack of wanting to contribute to society, but rather be hostage to an extremist system that penalizes people for their success - it goes against the very core of how this country was founded and prospered.

I fully disagree with increasing taxes on individuals and families because they make a certain amount of money. It seems like you are penalized for working hard and being successful. If you increase taxes on big business, foriegn imports and stop this senseless war in Iraq we would gain a lot more revenue to use towards education and services that help the poor receive the necessary training to help them get better jobs. If you place larger taxes on US companies that outsource their manufacturing jobs or call center positions to save a buck you can get some of the lost US revenue back. Give tax breaks to companies for creating jobs and keeping their businesses and business practices in the US, which would help stimulate the economy... What is a $300, $600 or $1200 check really going to do in the long run... NOTHING

When I read the article, I saw he said he may be able to fix this ill by taxing some rich people... dunno where you read the rest of that crap into the article from.
______

We can solve all of society's ills by taxing the rich. It's really that simple! Another Obama "fairy tale".

Obviously if you raise taxes on "rich" people, they will either a) raise their salaries to offset, b) restructure their income to avoid the tax, c) work fewer hours to maximize both income and leisure time, or d) go somewhere else where the taxes are lower. So the chances of collecting any significant additional tax are pretty low.

"Rich" people are also people who are entrepreneurs and/or have higher levels education, and these are the people who drive the economy by creating new companies, new products, new technologies, etc. If you give them any incentive to go somewhere else or stop working, you're shooting yourself in the foot. All of the finance jobs in NYC are moving to London, and I'm sure a +12.4% tax will just speed up that process.

I get so sick of politicians treating me like I'm mentally retarded. I thought Obama was different (he was against the gas tax stupidity) but obviously not.

Man you and many others on this board really are stupid nice and slow for you

Obviously if you raise taxes on "rich" people, they will either a) raise their salaries to offset, b) restructure their income to avoid the tax, c) work fewer hours to maximize both income and leisure time, or d) go somewhere else where the taxes are lower. So the chances of collecting any significant additional tax are pretty low.

A. Already do that
B. Already do that
C. Most of these people don't need to work anyway so that argument doesn't fly. People who want money will still work at it. Having 600k income is better than 500k income regardless of how high the taxes are
D. The US has the second lowest tax rates in the first world countries

This isn't a tax hike. It's closing a loophole that allows 3% of the country (a much richer 3%) to pay a lower percentage of Social Security tax than the rest of us. No different than saying someone who buys a BMW has to pay the same sales tax as someone who buys a Big Mac. I'm for it.

The tax rate for those making $250,000+ needs to be increased; each $20,000 should be increased. This would apply to earned and unearned income.

Those parachute 'fat cats' should be taxed at a different rate and much higher. If employees pensions are decreased or not received at all, the 'fat cat' payments must be put in a fund for their pensions.

Many complained about 'Welfare Queens' and that adversely effected infants who must be cared for (is it a challenge to wonder why many women had to have abortions?)

Welfare now starts at the top, if at all since they are allowed so many loopholes.

Middle income pay the taxes for the VERY wealthy and poor.

Some changes MUST be made and not at the expense of poor, disabled, children, mentally or physically handicapped including mentally handicapped.

Medicare benefits and Medicaid must be increased. Many persons must choose between food and medical care.

Education/training to fit the physical and mental abilities of the unemployed is a necessity.

Yet, we are spending $$$$$$$ in Iraq to replace what was destroyed by the neo-cons; wounding soldiers and Iraqis who must have special care.

"I know this is hard for McCrazy's fan base to understand, but the government needs revenue to function. It costs money to build streets and bridges, and to keep up the power grid and even maintain streets and bridges. War with Iraq is also really expensive."

*******************************
I do not support McCain (or anyone else at this point).

First, defense/military spending is a traditional function of government.

Second, infrastructure is better managed as a public good rather than a private investment (usually).

But, at what point does one draw the line between what government should provide and what people need to provide for themselves?

American ideals are based on the premise of liberty, individuality, self-reliance, strong work ethic, and merit.

Redistribution of wealth to those who have done nothing to earn it and who refuse to even try to rely on themselves is the antithesis of what our country stands for.

If some "rich" feel they need to pay more taxes, fine. Let them increase their charitable donations. But they should not and do not speak for all "rich" people.

Taxing the rich and redistribution of wealth for the "common good" is a more insidious use of government force than military invasion and must not be tolerated in a country like ours.

If you are lucky enough to be born with the tools to reach great heights within the context of the many disparities in our economic system then you owe the system. Lot's of people work hard all of their life and never reach great financial heights. I think people have a general problem with the fact that so much money can be made in our system just by gaming it.

Susan,
I agree that people are making too much money. It makes us greedy for material things. I've asked Sen Obama to propose a 100% tax on all income made over $75,000 per individual and $125,000 per couple. It's time the rich pay up!

"Tim - why wouldn't you buy into this change...we are the one's supporting people like you

Posted by: | June 13, 2008 1:03 PM "

Well, I am not quite at that 250,000 point yet. But with my engineering degree and work ethic i hope to one day make that much a year, but even an Electrical engineer in a growing company doesn't make that much.

If, or when, I make 250,000+ a year i will be glad to pay more taxes to the government that helped me get a good education to make it that far. Of course i am one of those "self made" men who started with a single mother, who made less then 10,000, and used grants/loans to get my education.

"There is probably not a person below 40 years old alive who thinks that social security will be available to them when they retire given the excessive benefit levels in the system."

Above is an example of pure, unadulterated 100%, All American
bullcr*p that was brought to us by the Reagan Administration.

Brought to us by the HATERS of FDR (you children know who that was???...I doubt it) who are intent on laundering your miniature brains of good sense, clear judgement and reason.

YOU BETTER expect Social Security...because you've been paying into the fund since you began work AND it is your RIGHT and not an option. As the PROPAGANDISTS of the RIGHT would lead your UNINFORMED minds to believe.

And some of the Propagandists have been successful. Well, kiddies the LESS MONEY YOU HAVE as each day begins these days THE MORE SENSE Social Security WILL MAKE TO YOU.

We can solve all of society's ills by taxing the rich. It's really that simple! Another Obama "fairy tale".

Obviously if you raise taxes on "rich" people, they will either a) raise their salaries to offset, b) restructure their income to avoid the tax, c) work fewer hours to maximize both income and leisure time, or d) go somewhere else where the taxes are lower. So the chances of collecting any significant additional tax are pretty low.

"Rich" people are also people who are entrepreneurs and/or have higher levels education, and these are the people who drive the economy by creating new companies, new products, new technologies, etc. If you give them any incentive to go somewhere else or stop working, you're shooting yourself in the foot. All of the finance jobs in NYC are moving to London, and I'm sure a +12.4% tax will just speed up that process.

I get so sick of politicians treating me like I'm mentally retarded. I thought Obama was different (he was against the gas tax stupidity) but obviously not.

tax all income for social security, the ultra rich have just been wasting it on a selfish buying spree, this is NOT a tax increase only a cancellation of Bush/MccAin's obscene tax cuts for the rich for yachts and trophy mountain villas (montana, idaho, utah, colorado ski resorts).

tax all income for social security, the ultra rich have just been wasting it on a selfish buying spree, this is NOT a tax increase only a cancellation of Bush/MccAin's obscene tax cuts for the rich for yachts and trophy mountain villas (montana, idaho, utah, colorado ski resorts).

I speculate the vast majority of 'rich' people you are referring to fully support paying their fair share. The simple question is to what degree. As I stated previously, the rich pay an effective tax rate that is 3x as high as the middle class. Nothwithstanding the higher taxes that would be paid if their tax rates were the same, the progressive system makes the rich pay exponentially more. Under Obama's system, the 'rich' will have a 65% marginal tax rate while the poor will have a negative tax rate and the next highest quintile will be at around 5%. This is an extremist, out of countrol system that penalizes people for working hard and will make it the most progressive and highest marginal tax rate in the industrialized world. Sorry, but that is not not fair.

As long as soldiers, teachers, police, firefighters are asked to shoulder the burden in times of crisis and collective danger it is only fair that the "rich" at least contribute their money to the collective good. It is a privledge to live in America. It is a privlege to benefit from our system. It is also just plain old luck to be born here. Pay your dues and quit whining.

Susan,
I agree that people are making too much money. It makes us greedy for material things. I've asked Sen Obama to propose a 100% tax on all income made over $75,000 per individual and $125,000 per couple. It's time the rich pay up!

Posted by: Lisa | June 13, 2008 11:49 AM
**************************************
Either this poster is joking or is a complete moron.

"Wow, what an idiot. It is change not because he is increasing taxes; it is change because for once the RICH people are getting increased taxes.

And that is change i can beleive in."

This tickled me! The point about the tax burden shifted back to the rich, followed by, "And that is change I can believe in." I found that funny!!

I understand those making wonderful amounts of money feeling completely entitled to have it. I also understand why those who indeed work as well, but making less, would not want to have the burden. I would rather have some form of census or balance between these groups at the same time and do our collective part. Those with less money, well they are more limited in terms of living, food, gas, and social security etc. However, the rich, I would imagine, have more cushion and I honestly believe that if either party is seeking to place a burden (rather than finding some way to balance) on anyone, common sense would be those who have plenty.

I find interesting the "Socialist" comments. Indeed we have Social Issues, and therefore we need social programs to help fill the social gaps which can extend the economic ladder and dissolve middle class more than it helps build middle class, so that these people can at some point get rich too! Rich people influence enough. When more middle-class members are able, and do reach that wealthy point, perhaps then we can bring some balance in ideals!

There is probably not a person below 40 years old alive who thinks that social security will be available to them when they retire given the excessive benefit levels in the system. As a result, every one of them views social security as nothing but a tax - let's be real here

The only way to fix this problem is to accept it is a tax and treat it for its intended purpose - only giving benefits to people who need it. Retired rich people should get zero benefits regardless of how much they put in. It is absurd for the government to pay millionaires $2k / month paid for by hard working americans.

Obama's tax policy is by definition just a populist stunt to get elected, when you consider how extraordinary progressive the current tax system is already. The upper quintile already pays 3x the effective tax rate of the middle quintile. The 2 lower quintile effective tax rates are less than 10%. The situation is ridiculous and is a slap in the face to honest, hard working people with decent jobs they earned.

1. SS was meant as supplemental income. NOT sole income during one's later years.

2. Any change to taxes has to come from Congress. Obama can say whatever he wants and I am sure no doubt he knows this. If anyone would bother reading the Constitution, tax/spend is within the power of Congress.

All the President can do is sign or veto spending bills (as well as all other bills).

This isn't a tax hike. It's closing a loophole that allows 3% of the country (a much richer 3%) to pay a lower percentage of Social Security tax than the rest of us. No different than saying someone who buys a BMW has to pay the same sales tax as someone who buys a Big Mac. I'm for it.

I'm sort of tired of hearing about how to "save" social security in the first place. I'm 23 and have realistically been paying into it since I was 19. Most of my jobs before that were things like waiting tables or doing landscaping so the government wasn't really getting a hack at my income yet. Anyway, I've gotten to the point where I don't see why I should be paying into this program at all. Based on current trajectory the program is going to go broke short of radical tax changes to support it or some kind of privatization. Since it remains the third rail of American politics I don't think either of these things will happen. Essentially me and people from my generation are paying for a benefit for others that we are unlikely to ever receive ourselves. Additionally, people who have been paying for it all their lives are already often denied it because they were allegedly too financially successful to warrant it. Frankly, I wouldn't care if social security was scrapped altogether.

Thats one thing that the American left has never truly understood. Social Democracy as it stands in European countries works by putting higher taxes on EVERYONE (not just the rich) but also allows everyone INCLUDING the rich to benefit from government education, health-care, child assistance and infrastructure. For example even the very wealthy in Sweden will get state funds for child expenses. In some cases it also can foster capitalism by taking the burden of paying for employee welfare off of business enterprises.

The contrast in the United States is that the Democratic party wants the rich to subsidize the poor, forcing them to pay for the benefits of others while in turn receiving little benefit themselves and attempt to support it with moralistic but logically flimsy arguments. This is why bitterness ensues. If you want big government programs that work then everyone has to feel as though they're getting a benefit. Rhetoric about the rich "owing" the poor is simply divisive and a recipe for inaction on pressing social and economic problems. The European model tends to redistribute money to everyone to help provide basic human needs while the American model tries to be Robin Hood stealing from the "wealthy" (whatever that means these days, its shocking who often qualifies for the AMT) to give to the "poor".

The system is hypocritical and ineffective. Though I would be cool if we did things the European way when it comes to some of these things (only for some though, I'm a pretty free market type so I don't go in for state owned companies/protected industries or import tariffs and entrenched civil services and overly powerful unions and the like), until the our feuding parties take a reality check, stop with the class warfare, and start with the idea of the common good I'll have to stay a libertarian. Limited government is better than schizophrenic government any day.

Susan,
I agree that people are making too much money. It makes us greedy for material things. I've asked Sen Obama to propose a 100% tax on all income made over $75,000 per individual and $125,000 per couple. It's time the rich pay up!

Did anyone watch Obama& Michelle at lunch while they talked in ohio to retired people? what a joke. They both sounded like bumble mumble! they were trying to explain the ss and retirement! i would give them an F on that duo talk! he always has the words, they just don't mean anything! And who did her hair, it looked like she was trying to be sexy, that will never happen! Looks like she straightened it! She needs to have a worddrob person to help her pich her colors

People who complain about higher taxes while the government continues to borrow money are really starting to piss me off. How do you people think this debt will ever be paid? By someone other than YOUR kids? You're mortgaging your children's future, pure and simple. Unless you're sterile, infertile, or celibate, you are either stupid or insane.

Obama had embraced and participated in his church for numerous years, and only now, after pressure is mounting on him does he choose to leave.

Obama did the same for Rev Wrong after his insane speeches surfaced on the net. Obama embraced him while throwing Grandma under the bus. Again only after pressure mounted did Obama throw Rev Wrong under the bus with Granny.

Aren't you liberal ObamaBOTS tired of PRETENDING that Obama is who he says he is?

How can we have a President of these United States wearing "DEPENDS" diapers. That's the real reason why Mcain doesn't want to talk to our enemies. It's hard when you have to take a potty break every 15 minutes and when you come back you forget the guys name. My grandfather was like that. lol

I commend your ability to speak in near complete sentences; however, I fail to understand the premise of your argument. Perhaps if FOX News could provide more detail we could know not just how you feel but why. Good luck with the redneck thing.

Posted by: | June 13, 2008 1:03 PM

=====================================

Unlike you sweetheart atleast I sign my name!! Also of note, not one post did I write was false.

I find it amazing that you find any comments made by any presidential candidate as something that is going to happen. The fact of the matter is, before any President can raise/lower your taxes they need to have a bill, voted on and passed by the House and the Senate. So before you go and start planning on spending this money in tax cuts or lowering how much your saving for retirement. You might want to at least wait until a bill passes in congress. Because as we have seen for the last year the Democrats cant get any legislation that really matters out of Congress.

I commend your ability to speak in near complete sentences; however, I fail to understand the premise of your argument. Perhaps if FOX News could provide more detail we could know not just how you feel but why. Good luck with the redneck thing.

This is a good idea, even though I will be one of the fortunate few who will have to pay more taxes if this proposal goes through. And if we stop spending $100 billion a year on Iraq we may be able to balance the budget again.

mollymon - I hear you. Both parties pretend they want to change things but the truth is the status quo gives them plenty of fodder for elections. This won't change until the public actually starts rewarding politicians for fixing problems. Problem is, when problems are fixed most people stop paying attention. After getting rid of the deficit, cutting crime and presiding over the longest economic recovery in history, Clinton got the boot because of his cigar and Gore's exaggerated sighs. And the American public got the president it wanted and deserved.

"To cbd... I fail to buy your argument about social security. Social security deductions are maxed at $102K because the benefit is also maxed at that level. In addition, the way I see the max level for social security is as an incentive that I get to keep more of any income beyond that level. Guess what? As I get to keep less of my income beyond a certain level, the less motivated I get to work harder. Collectively, the country is worse off if we, collectively, don't work as hard because we feel less motivated.

BTW, why do some people think that flat is unfair? Again here, even though the tax rate is the same, those who make more pay more taxes in absolute value. What's so unfair about that?"

I hope that the extra tax for people that make over 250,000 a year makes them work a little less harder. The reason: I, and many people i know, will keep working hard and gladly take your $250,000 dollar job when you slack off.

This extra tax WILL NOT deter people from working hard at their job, their are plenty of people that will do the job harder and for less money then someone that is that GREEDY.

Sweet Irony-
I love a challenge. But sadly your comments do not provide me an intellectual one. Nonetheless since my daddy taught me to be kind to dumb animals, I will reply:

"how exactly do you show your love of country if don't believe in paying taxes?"

If you equate paying taxes with love of country- you have a problem.

I have been to Iraq. Twice. Not as a soldier but as support. And am going back in 2 weeks. Have you been to Iraq? Have you been shot at? Have you had your plane take evasive action? Stand down.

Oh- and I also lived in Kingston Jamaica for 6 months building an orphanage. And another 6 months in Mexico City teaching english. No- not with the Peace Corp but with another non-profit human rights group. My Spanish is excellent. My Patwa is not.

Finally I, like most of my "rich" friends give 10% to charity on every paycheck. When the collection basket passes at Church I contribute bills, not coins.

Like I said- I enjoy a challenge. I do not boast but only tell facts. And the fact that a bunch of elitists who never get their hands dirty in work, in charity, in school, in community tell me I need to "pay up" is just a joke.

Finally sir or madam- a reminder: Senator Obama does not pay SS tax. Congress voted unanimously to "opt out" of the SS tax in favor of private accounts. Everyone from the Right of Coburn to the left of Kennedy voted to "opt out". Not a shock, they did not extend us, the mere people, the same option.

I think the donut hole idea is definitely the way to go. it starts fixing the problem and is at least the most tenable politically. Both liberals and conservatives should like this idea, although I suppose Obama could get heat from both parties because (oh my god!) here's an idea that could actually work.

Obama had embraced and participated in his church for numerous years, and only now, after pressure is mounting on him does he choose to leave.

Obama did the same for Rev Wrong after his insane speeches surfaced on the net. Obama embraced him while throwing Grandma under the bus. Again only after pressure mounted did Obama throw Rev Wrong under the bus with Granny.

Aren't you liberal ObamaBOTS tired of pretending that Obama is who he says he
is?

I think every level of society at whatever pay range you are in should have to pay a certain percentage (same percentage) into the SS fund. No donut hole and no caps! That will ensure enough money is in the coffers. Also the SS rate for elderly is dissmally low and one cannot live on the pay. The government allows retirees to work and make up to about $12,000 a year to subsidize their SS income but that ceiling needs to be raised to about $22,000 with inflation rate adjustables. This will ensure elder are not cornered into poverty even if they work into reitrement. Eldery need a decent income and should not be left as the working poor to just survive in poverty.

Social Security is becoming a REgressive tax. Raising the ceiling on SocSec tax payments is long overdue.

Recent demographic studies show that the poor die younger than the rich and the rich live very long indeed. It turns out that the rich, even though there is a cap on payouts, are starting to use up more SocSec than they pay in because they live so long. The poor, meanwhile, are seeing their payouts level off relative to their contributions. If the demographic trends continue then in fact they will pay in more than they take out. Thus the regressivity.

Obama had embraced and participated in his church for numerous years, and only now, after pressure is mounting on him does he choose to leave.

Obama did the same for Rev Wrong after his insane speeches surfaced on the net. Obama embraced him while throwing Grandma under the bus. Again only after pressure mounted did Obama throw Rev Wrong under the bus with Granny.

Chevy, thanks for that vivid demonstration of the fact that there IS no such thing as an "educated redneck". You can go back to Possum Hollow now...we'll be sure to ignore you and your severe brain cramps in the future.

I'm an Obama supporter, but this donut is really a dumb idea. The problem with Social Security is very easy to fix. The payments are adjusted by using Average Wage indexing. This needs to be changed to either the rate of inflation, or Median Wage indexing. This would "reduce" the rate of growth of SS payments, but that's fine. As ti stands the payments are increasing at a rate much faster than inflation, and that's where the problem comes in.

The details of how to actually make SS fully solvent and actually reduce the tax are here:

Julian, do you even understand the question that was asked that I was answering? The question was, why does the person making $75,000 have to pay taxes all year while the person who makes $150,000 stops paying taxes. The reason is that the person making $150k hits the cap in October sometime while the person making $75 never does and doesn't pay near the tax that the person making $150 does. Is that too complicated for you?

Obama is less about "change" and more about simply going back to failed economics and ideology of the past. More supposed "class-warfare," more penalties on so-called big-bad corporations, more Gov't handouts for his organized support on the left.

I may make more than 250k next year, but I have no problem taking a little hit on this "for the good of my country." To me, the more important thing is getting an administration that balances the budget takes control of our economy in the long term. If we balance the budget, make SS solvent, and address the health care crisis, the increased stability in the economy will allow all of us to profit across the board.

Also, we might want to stop spending a gazillion dollars a day on a certain stupid war.

alan, if your idea of "capitalism" is what we've got now, where greedy slimeballs confused about the idea of "ETHICS" who sit in the corporate boardrooms and executive offices have no qualms about taking the nest eggs of people who bought into saving for their retirements--by accepting their "investments" and giving them back 14 pages of very fine print that requires an attorney AND an independent CPA to review--then those slimeballs laugh about their $11K shower curtains while the "investors" get comfortable in their cardboard boxes under a freeway overpass...then your idea of "capitalism" SHOULD BE KILLED.

The problem that people like you and Lynn E and Matthew have is that you EXPECT your bad behavior to be rewarded with riches, not to mention that you have no idea what "socialism" or "communism" is except for boogeymen that conservative jerks like you try to dredge up when you get backed into corners like you are these days with the failed philosophy and failed policies you've bought into. How about if you try thinking about someone more than yourself? THAT is the traditional American way of doing things, and you'd better get used to the idea of getting traditional again before you turn into laughable anachronisms even more than you already are. Or else many of us will be happy to get you comfortable in your new cardboard box home.

And Matthew, pull your ignorant head out of that place where the sun doesn't shine...Chicago is no more "slum" than Atlanta is "Possum Hollow".

This is the reason Obama will not get elected...he is a typical democrat - more of the same - raising taxes. I understand the need to help the needy, but to a certain extent. People have to help themselves. We should not have to pay a disproportionate amount just because we worked hard to earn a bit more money...GO McCain.

"Social Security has already raised the retirement age. Which is like saying, we expected you to die sooner, now that you're living longer, we want you to work and pay longer."

Well, yeah. And so what? Social Security was designed as a safety net to a part of the population that is vulnerable financially precisely because they have more health problems and work less or cannot work at all. It's not a vehicle that 'allows' someone to retire.

And the age when one 'enters' that population has risen, and will continue to rise, so raising SS eligibility HAS to be on the table when discussing solutions.

Obama's donut hole is a great first step to help with the revenue drain, but rasing the age of eligibility should probably be the next step after that.

Intead of raising the tax on the $250K earners and above, if the tax is truly fair (and is funding a worthwhile government project), then just increase everybody's taxes. I don't make $250K, but it is not fair that they get to subsidize everybody else. Obama is creating a class war, and I think this is bad.

What if those super rich leave the US? Who will pay for our big government now?

Right POV,
What a wonderful story. Isn't it great that we live in a country that so rewards hard work and effort that a guy like you can take out a student loan, apply yourself, and soon earn a quarter million dollars per year! Only in America! That why we love it! Agreed? So how exactly do you show your love of country if don't believe in paying taxes? Are you volunteering to fight in Iraq? Have you joined the Peace Corp? Or do you show your patriotism by sticking an American flag on your car bumper and cheering on W like a star spangled groupie?
Fact is buddy, your lousy party and your lousy vote got us into the mess we're in. And it's going to take lots of money to get us out of it. Better yours than mine rich boy!

Here a simple solution - distribute ALL "excess" funds paid into social security back to taxpayers every year and run it as revenue neutral without the capacity for the government to "borrow" those excess funds and use them as general revenue.

I GUARANTEE you that we'd find a solution to keep the program solvent then. The problem is that the federal govt is addicted to the money that the program throws off as a result of where the demographics currently lie within its ponzi-like structure and just like any addict, it won't do anything about the upcoming crash until its too late.

Right POV,
You hit the nail on the head. What really needs to happen is an Ayn Randian kind of strike just like in Atlas Shrugged.

Lets see how long this "HATE THE RICH PEOPLE" movement goes on when the so called rich people stop working, stop their investments, stop creating jobs and yeah stop paying for this socialist nonsense from Medicare to Social security.

Its very clear that any one who says Obama's plan is "reasonable" has no clue as to how the Social Security works or how the US economy itself works.

It works because of people like RightPOV - crush him and you crush America.

How did a great country which once rose in rebellion against the unjust taxation of British Monarch come to this ?

I believe that the best way to shore up Social Security is to go after the people that robbed it in the first place. Let us say a 20% garnishment of wages for every current and former US House, Senate member and President since 1970 until they stop raiding the golden egg.

At first I was confused about the doughnut hole aspect, but I think I understand the logic after re-reading this.

As I understand this posting, people making up to $102,000 see no change at all and continue to pay the same amount toward Social Security.

People making between $102,000 and $250,000 ALSO see no change at all; their income up to $102,000 is taxed for Social Security just as it is now, and their income above $102,000 is not taxed for Social Security, also reflecting the status quo. This range of incomes is what creates the "doughnut hole."

However, once someone gets above $250,000, their income above that level is once again taxed for Social Security, unlike now. That would mean that very wealthy people pay more toward Social Security in the future, rather than only paying such taxes on the very lowest part of their income. That does seem more equitable than declaring the very highest earnings tax-free and letting the rest of us pay, as now. And they, too, still get a tax-free break on the part of their income above $102,000 and below $250,000.

I think that if someone was making $249,000, and likely to make $260,000 the next year, they would have no particular reason to worry or to manipulate that outcome. All that would mean is that they would pay Social Security tax on the final $10,000 above the $250,000 cutoff -- just as they (and we) are already doing on their income up to $102,000.

Don't forget what "social security" really is, people. Its not just a savings account for your retirement, it is also a SOCIAL PROGRAM that ensures that widows and orphans are not out on the street.

Part of what makes America great is that we typically don't let people starve to death. We have social programs that were instituted after the Great Depression to ensure that all citizens have a certains standard of living. If you disagree with that premise and want all social programs eliminated (welfare, food for children through schools, foster care), then imagine what this country would be like then.

Yes, if you make more, you might pay a bit higher percentage in taxes. But how can that truly be a disadvantage for earning more, since you are still EARNING MORE MONEY the vast majority of it that you keep? And how many who make more than $200,000 have clever tax attorneys to get them out of taxes anyhow with loopholes and what-not?

I'm all for everyone paying a flat tax rate with no loopholes, etc. But the tax attorneys and accountants would never allow their livelihoods to disappear overnight, so until then a graduated tax on those who earn more is fair.

The other issue is that say a person that makes $2,000,000 a year. That person would hit the cap wherever it is $102, $150, $200,000 whatever. They would cap out. His proposal means that there is essentially no cap, so at $250,000 or whatever point people restart paying taxes.

And here is Obamas real problem. He won the nomination by unveiling virtually nothing about himself or his policies only touting CHANGE and YES WE CAN. Now people are going to slowly start to see what he means by that and I think that is going to STUN a lot of people. Policywise he had Hiliary were about 99.8% the same.

Sadly, even alot of people who make more than 250k don't save what they need.

And regardless, it's also worth mentioning that your view is no different than saying that we should give money to those who need it the least. (???!!!) That's not really the purpose of social security, is it. Now, if you disagree with entitlement programs in general, just say so. But it's apples and oranges to determine payment or benefits of Social Security based on who 'deserves' it.

3% is irrelevant. Many economist have forecast that by the 2020's that the current social security system will require more than $1 trillion anually to cover all the people who will qualify at that time. To accomplish that every working person in U.S will have to pay more than double thier current FICA tax to pay it. It is a broken system that was designed nearly 80 years ago in the "New Deal" and never intended by Roosevelt to be a permanment solution. Yet it still remains. It needs to be majorly overhauled or abolished. I am in favor of saying that anyone born after year 2000 will not have social security benefits, but will still pay into the system at half the current rate. Everyone after that will participate in a new system that amounts to a forced savings account that deposits money into garuanteed investments such as bonds or CDs. At the age of 30, 40 and 50 participates will have the option to divert 10% of their earning from interest into high yield non-garaunteed options. Although the first generation will pay a little more supporting both. Each succesive generation will pay less until there are no more people drawing SS. That is a much more sustainable system and would cost the government far less to maintain and operate.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...everyone loves to complain about paying taxes. If you don't like paying taxes, don't live in the US and don't ask for any services. The entire point of Social Security is that the VAST majority of Americans are too shortsighted to save for their future. Indeed the individual savings rate of Americans is far worse than most industrialized countries. And this is despite the fact that most other industrialized countries have FAR better social service safety nets than the US.
Actually, I'd like to propose that the word "tax" be eliminated from political discussion. Lets call it "membership dues." Yeah, you know, the same thing that you rich Republicans pay to gain access to your exclusive country clubs. Just think of your checks to the IRS as the same thing. You are simply paying your "membership dues" for the right to live in this great country. If you don't like the rate of the membership dues, leave and go live in the Bahamas.
That being said, these increases sound very modest, and would only impact a small proportion of US citizens. The upper 3% have the ability to shell out a little bit more money and they should.

It's hard for any politician to be responsible, and reduce the budget deficit, because Americans scream bloody murder when asked to pay more taxes, or receive less from government programs. Just read the comments here, or comments on an article about cutting some government program.

Â« From Human Capital to Capital Gains: The Puzzle of Profits Interests | Main | Slate: A Secret Tax on Teenagers Â»

May 31, 2008
Biggest Losers Under Obama's Plan to Remove the Current $102k Wage Ceiling for Social Security Taxes
Tax Foundation: Obama's Plan to Abolish the Social Security Wage Ceiling: A State-by-State Breakdown, by Gerald Prante:

It is commonly observed that the policy ideas of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are almost identical, but Obama does have one major tax proposal that Clinton does not specifically endorse: eliminating the wage ceiling for Social Security taxes. ...

[T]here has always been a ceiling on the tax, an amount of annual wages above which the tax does not apply. Right now, the wage ceiling is quite high, $102,000 for a single person ... In 2008, the maximum Social Security tax for a single person is 12.4% of the first $102,000 in wages, or $12,648.

Reporters have asked Obama how he can propose to abolish the wage ceiling and also keep his promise not to raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $200,000 or $250,000 (Obama has cited both figures). His response is that he might campaign for a "donut hole" in the Social Security tax. That is, wages up to the ceiling would be taxed as usual, followed by a non-taxable amount up to $200,000 or $250,000, and then all wages above that would be taxed.

In the table below we give a state-by-state breakdown of those three scenarios: (1) wage ceiling is eliminated, (2) wage ceiling eliminated but with a donut hole up to $200,000, and (3) wage ceiling eliminated but with a donut hole up to $250,000.

Here are the ten states that would be hardest hit by Obama's proposal (along with the percentage of the state's workers who would see their taxes increase under the Obama plan):

New Jersey (10.7%)
Maryland (9.6%)
Connecticut (9.5%)
Virginia (9.0%)
Massachusetts (8.9%)
California (8.8%)
New York (8.0%)
Illinois (7.02%)
Colorado (6.96%)
New Hampshire (6.8%)
Here are the ten states that would be least affected by Obama's proposal (along with the percentage of the state's workers who would see their taxes increase under the Obama plan):

Lynne, I agree with you 100%. The SS ages were set in a day when life expectancies were far below what they are now. Most people are certainly capable of working well past 60. Very much agree with you.

As for the donut, I agree with that as well in theory. In this area at least it is very easy for people to make over $100k a year. Law students like myself, people with security clearances etc. They should still get some "relief" from capping out on their payments and re-starting the tax at some set level makes sense to me rather than say raise the cap to $160,000.

To cbd... I fail to buy your argument about social security. Social security deductions are maxed at $102K because the benefit is also maxed at that level. In addition, the way I see the max level for social security is as an incentive that I get to keep more of any income beyond that level. Guess what? As I get to keep less of my income beyond a certain level, the less motivated I get to work harder. Collectively, the country is worse off if we, collectively, don't work as hard because we feel less motivated.

BTW, why do some people think that flat is unfair? Again here, even though the tax rate is the same, those who make more pay more taxes in absolute value. What's so unfair about that?

"I know this is hard for McCrazy's fan base to understand, but the government needs revenue to function. It costs money to build streets and bridges, and to keep up the power grid and even maintain streets and bridges. War with Iraq is also really expensive."

Where do you live. My roads have huge pot holes in them. Many bridges are unsafe to go over and schools are falling down. Nice try, but many of our taxes go to social programs for people who can't keep their legs closed and I am tired of it.

Social Security has already raised the retirement age. Which is like saying, we expected you to die sooner, now that you're living longer, we want you to work and pay longer. The problem with Social Security is congress and The President can't keep their hands out of the pot. If they did, we wouldn't have a problem, and until they do, the problem won't be solved. I don't mind paying extra, but limit use to retirement as it should be.

DC, I didn't misunderstand the proposal at all. What I said was that since an increase in funding is needed, which I do not argue with, that the donut hole is preposterous. Why should those with an income within the donut hole range (102K - 250K) not have to also pay in on those wages over the 102K? Raise the income cap to whatever it needs to be in order to keep the program solvent and have everybody pay. In other words, shared sacrifice.

However, if I'm going to stand on my soapbox, I would rather propose an increase in the retirement age. As it stands now, you can collect partial benefits starting at age 60, and full benefits if you wait until 65. At 60, most people are perfectly capable of continuing to work, and even at 65, most remain in good health and quite active. I think a better fix for the system would be to raise the qualifying age for partial benefits to 65 and full benefits to 70, with 65 being the age that Medicare kicks in, instead of the current 60. That way, two festering problems can be alleviated at the same time.

Obama is going to put out a lot of populist policies that are going to superpopular to get people over to his agenda, then begin to make more dangerous decisions. The mob will try to keep everyone under control. Hitler had charm too and never ordered anyone's death as far as we know but people are pretty clear that he did. Obama presents himself as the nice compassionate guy while planning his take over of "rich" people and corporations. While there is no question that there needs to be higher tax rates on the wealthier people, it can't be unreasonable or unfair. We can't chase corporations out of the country but it would be nice to make them more responisble. I fear what Obama's objectives really are and Socialist and Communist is not a far out word to call them. He's got a background in them for sure.

I've long been a proponent for this. But it's only a first step. A good first step, to be sure, buteventually, we're going to have to raise the age of eligibility, and maybe scale benefits more, which is a real tough sell.

I do get the feeling that Obama is going to be the more reasonable and practical candidate trying to actually take action to solve some of these problems. Social Security is one of those issues with about 5 solutions waiting out there but they all get killed by politicization. Let's see if McCain engages in a fair and detailed debate about this, or will he get his minions out there screaming 'he's gonna raise your taxes! he's gonna raise your taxes!"

Speaking of which, anyone even considering voting for McCain ought to check out the Tax Policy Center's analysis of their respective taz plans. Obama's tax plan will reduce taxes for 95% of voters, and the other 5% won't even get too much of a hike percentage-wise. McCain's tax plan, on the other hand, would do little more than bankrupt the country.

Just more proof that the democrats are really socialists. Why must those who earn over $250,000 help support people that were not smart enough to save their own money for retirement? Redistribution of wealth will never be possible without killing capitalism. Bottom line, why should we strive to be successful and earn more money if all it means is that we will pay an ever increasing % of our income in taxes?

"Why should someone who makes $75K a year pay social security takes all year and someone who makes $102K "max out?" As someone who makes a salary above the social security income cliff, I believe that everyone should pay their "fair share." It's all about fairness."

That person pays all year because they havent paid as much in tax as the person who makes $150,000 does. Do people really not understand how the SS tax system works?

I know this is hard for McCrazy's fan base to understand, but the government needs revenue to function. It costs money to build streets and bridges, and to keep up the power grid and even maintain streets and bridges. War with Iraq is also really expensive.

The republicans plan is to bankrupt the government. Bush and his cronies have shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. President Obama would restore fairness to the system, and allow the American middle class to begin to rebuild it self.

Obama is reading pages out of the Russian Revolution. Take it away from the rich, and distribute wealth to the poor. Essientially he wants to destroy capitalism which made America great. It goes further than socialism and borders on communism. Apparently the direlects out there that don't work, are jealous of those that have worked hard and have something, are the core constituency of this pied piper of socialism. Unfortunately he will not be taking from the rich and people like Oprah won't be effected. This Socialist is bringing out the worst in our society. Racial and monetary diviseivness. Where did this thing come from?

Posted by: ziggy1 | June 13, 2008 12:04 PM

The republicans have always tried to redistribute the wealth. They take from the poor and give to the rich.

Exactly POV. I worked 2 jobs to put myself through a relatively small junior college, then worked for 4 years and then worked 2 part time jobs while putting myself through law school. I bust my butt every day to make the money I do and dont feel one bit sorry for it. I'm tired of people telling me why I should pay more taxes for the benefit of the country.

Just a thought... why can't Obama just plan a government with the current revenue? If this is not enough, then maybe he should plan on spending less. In terms of tax, McCain's plan is superior since he is even talking of tax breaks. My preference is not to change anything in the tax codes except to simplify it like removing the tax deductions/credits/loopholes. One rule should apply to all, and be done with it.

Among others, don't use Social Security surplus, and instead invest to offset future claims. I don't make $250K, but does anybody here believe that those who make $250K get more from the government than those making $50K? I don't think so. Truth is, those who make $250K pay a lot more taxes already, both in terms of absolute value and in percentage. Why punish these guys for being successful. In terms of incentives, why would Obama want to remove the incentives of people to earn more? Another thought, what if the tax rates goes down as the person earns more? So, if one makes $100K, he pays 28% marginal tax, but with $300K, the person will only pay 25%. In dollar terms, the $300K guy will pay more, but the percentage would be lower. I think more people would want to earn more that way since they keep more of what they earn, and the government will also collect more revenues. Again, just a thought....

I find AsperGirl's comments harsh and unhelpful. Is this proposal not doing exactly what you ask: being transparent about taxing those earning more than $250,000 per year to help keep Social Security viable?

The vast majority of us who have assets or make more than $250,000 per year enjoy that wealth largely because of the economic strength of this country. It is right and logical that the "rich" should contribute a greater share of their income to keep the country strong. Part of the motivation the working class has in this country to work for the businesses and service the assets of the "rich" is some promise of security in old age. Social Security guarantees a minimum level of security for those who need it, and should be protected.

I for one do not turn up my nose at Obama's proposal. I think it's a fair way to protect a national asset while maintaining an incentive for hard-working Americans to strive to extend their incomes into the donut hole (from 100K up to 250K).

Let's stop the hate and realize that ultimately our boat sinks or survives as one.

>>I wonder how many, who perhaps earn just a little over that amount, will find ways to decrease their income in order to avoid this double whammy tax increase?

Why would anyone do this? Even if you're paying additional taxes on income over $250k, it's still income. For simplicity's sake, let's assume no taxes up to 250k, and a 40% rate on income above 250k. 250K + 60% of 50k is still more than 250k.

Actually, this is about fairness. Why should someone who makes $75K a year pay social security takes all year and someone who makes $102K "max out?" As someone who makes a salary above the social security income cliff, I believe that everyone should pay their "fair share." It's all about fairness.

Susan, Lisa
Who are you people to decide that people are making "too much" ? If its too much for you, it does not have to be too much for me.

Julia Roberts earns 20million dollars per movie - why dont you send letters of protest to Hollywood directors that she is making way too much - 20 million for 1 movie ?? I mean 5 generations of Americn working families may not be able to increase the families wealth to 20 million

Do you people even understand how ridiculous a system Social Security is ?

Consider this scenario

6.2% of every paycheck of yours goes into a bank account - money that you can never touch until you retire from the work force, according to the rules of the BANK. After working for 35 years where 6.2% of every pay check went into this account, the bank now says that you can now start withdrawing money, but only in quantities that it allows you to withdraw - and worse, it tells you that the availability of this money is dependent on the new account holders of the bank !!

So what ever happened to all the money that you put in for 35 years from every single pay check ?? That money was used to pay OTHER account holders who wanted their money back. Get it ?? So, the BANK has nothing more than a bunch of IOU's - some thing that it wont repay back unless it currently has customers !!

Would you ever agree to such a savings account with a private bank ? If you were rational, you wont.

But in real life, you do agree to such monstrous stupidity - the bank is the Federal Govt and the "savings" account is the Social Security system ! If there are not enough number of new workers in the workforce, your social security benefits may or may not be given to you !! and this after having an honest job for 35 long years !!

And here's the kicker -your employer is supposed to pay a "matching" 6.2% from every paycheck too - and guess what ?? Your employer does not want to pay for the retirement of some one whom he does not even know !! He'd rather pay you directly, if given a choice. So instead of paying a "matching" 6.2% that goes to some one he does not even know, he reduces your annual salary by the amount that he has to pay as a "matching" amount !

If the employer is a small or medium sized business, he most definitely does that.

And we are supposed to support this stupidity to hating rich people and taxing their incomes !! You think these people will happily pay the extra taxes ?? No, they wont - ultimately what ever extra tax they are forced to pay, they will pass on these costs to their employees ( by reducing their bonuses etc) or to their consumers

Increasing the payroll tax has a lot of unintended and depressing consequences that a knucklehead like Obama will never understand. Why should he ? There are enough number of " We HATE RICH PEOPLE" idealogues who would not mind turning this country into the United States Socialist Republic.

"The Rich"- those elite 10% are now paying 90% of the taxes. I think we are paying up.

I bust my hump every damn day and have done so since I was 10. I took out loans to go to college, got advanced degrees. When coworkers go to happy hour, I stay at work. My alarm goes off at 5:!5 no matter what I did last night. I don't call in sick. I work weekends. I don't make the money I do because I am white or because I am a man or because someone is kind to me. I make it because I work at it all the time. So if I make more than $250k- how dare some punk politician and his imbecile supporters tell me I need to "pay up".

For what? For more crappy education? More dangerous streets? More DMV lines, more useless programs, more streets full of crackheads and parks full of prostitutes?

I am sick and tired of politicans who don't work an honest day in their entitled, pork ladden, corporate jet riding, lives to tell me what I need to pay. When's the last time you, Senator, sat in traffic? When's the last time the metro experienced "delays" and had you stuck in a tunnel? Do you pay for the high gas prices or does your campaign? Did I get the low interest rate on my home that you, Senator, got on yours?

Hundreds of years ago our ancestors- my ancestors- got so sick and tied of a fat king across the pond taxing their food and tea and paper and breathing and smiling and living and walking that they revolted. And the wrote a document that justified their actions: violent, bloody, angry actions. They had had enough.

Where are you Bostonians of old? New Yorkers of old? Where is my Patrick Henry and my John Hancock?

Pay up. Pay to a corrupt, broken, nightmare of a government that cannot fix the damn Rock Creek Parkway in less than 2 years. Pay to a government who's "war on poverty" and "war on drugs" has had no victories. Pay up to a city that rewards unwed mothers, laziness, stupidity. Pay to an education system that has robbed millions of dollars and a tax system that has stolen millions more so that some criminals can buy gucci bags and bentleys with our tax dollars. Pay up.

Thank you Senator. Raise my taxes. Rape us more. Bleed us more. No wonder Abudabi is buying the Crystler building and Belgium is buying Budwesier. When France buys the Smithsonian will the taxation stop?

I'd love to read your comments, beloved readers. But I have to go back to work. Those of you who can sit here and blog and read and complain about the rich all day- maybe if you did your jobs you'd be "the rich" too. But then you'd ahve to pay up.

Currently everyone pays taxes on their SS income up to $102,000. This cap raises every year indexed to inflation. The proposal is creating a gap so that you pay taxes on your income up to $102,000 - then no taxes on income up to $250,000 - then you would apparently start paying taxes again.

Obama all the way. He's the most honest of all the others and 4 years of McCaan will equal 12 years of Bush. No Hillary a women shoudn't be running the country.
And I sure don't want to see some right wing nut from the libertarian party run this country and especially not Jesse "the body" ( or should I say no body Ventura).
The deal is those who want Hillary and McCaan are mostly whites who don't want to see a black man as President and those in the libertarian party are just plain nuts who in my opinion are a bunch of wacked out fools and want to impose their ant-government ways on the rest of us by way of running the country.

While I don't have a problem with the income cap on Social Security contributions being raised, I do not care for this proposal. Why should those making between 102K (the current cap) and 250K get a free ride? If an increase in the income cap is needed in order to guarantee continuous funding for Social Security, it should be across the board. Because we all benefit, we should all contibute equally in terms of percentage of income.

Also, the 250K threshold the Obama campaign mentions is also the same income threshold he wants to raise income taxes on. The net effect will be an income tax increase in addition to a Social Security tax increase, but only on those earning in excess of 250K per year. I wonder how many, who perhaps earn just a little over that amount, will find ways to decrease their income in order to avoid this double whammy tax increase?

Obama is reading pages out of the Russian Revolution. Take it away from the rich, and distribute wealth to the poor. Essientially he wants to destroy capitalism which made America great. It goes further than socialism and borders on communism. Apparently the direlects out there that don't work, are jealous of those that have worked hard and have something, are the core constituency of this pied piper of socialism. Unfortunately he will not be taking from the rich and people like Oprah won't be effected. This Socialist is bringing out the worst in our society. Racial and monetary diviseivness. Where did this thing come from?

Go get 'em Obama! McCain doesn't care about no stinkin Social Security. Both McCain's grandfather and father were Admirals in the military as well as being married to a >$100 million heiress, so McCain is not aware of the need for Social Security for the average American. McCain is truly confused and out of touch. The more the general election campaign continues, the more evident this will be.

Welcome to the socialist future of this country. We used to be a country that encouraged people to work as hard as they can to get ahead in life. No longer. Work as hard as you can so the Democrats can tax you to death to pay for more bloated social programs. If they want to fund more programs, they wont cut spending, they'll just come back to the "rich" and increase their taxes again and again and again.

70% of income taxes in this country are still paid for by 10% of the population. This isnt their fair share?

What people fail to keep in mind is that these income levels are not indexed to a cost of living indicator. Someone in DC who makes $75,000 per year would be like someone in Nebraska making $35,000 a year. For a college graduate in this area they can easily make $75k after a couple of years.

This is just another version of a "soak the rich" taxation approach. Why not just admit that he wants to take money from people who make a lot of money and use it to pump up social security?

If Obama spent as much time studying the policies and issues that he doesn't seem to understand yet as he does plotting ways to tax the upper class people who are in his crosshairs, he wouldn't have to retract everything he proposes within a week.

Susan,
I agree that people are making too much money. It makes us greedy for material things. I've asked Sen Obama to propose a 100% tax on all income made over $75,000 per individual and $125,000 per couple. It's time the rich pay up!

Interestingly, Obama has steered clear of raising the retirement age. While this is perhaps the most contentious fix for Social Security, it may be the most equitable one in that it does not take money out of your pocket. This would reduce the number of years the system has to pay retirement benefits to an individual. Finally, the extra years in the workforce should help workers set aside more funds for retirement while also generating additional years of social security tax revenue.

Mr. Obama is promising more of the same. Demopublicans are no different that the Republicrats. Vote for a change, vote for a real difference. Vote libertarian and free this country from the two party stranglehold on politics. This is the year to vote third party. Obama has no chance for the Democrats. He is a sacrificial offering to the minorities and if you believe otherwise, you believe everything in the media. McCain is old school politics. He is part of the generation that has caused our problems and is not the likely choice to fix it.

Interesting plan. As a former payroll administrator, it sounds a little tough to negotiate though.

I agree with raising the limit on the tax, however. So many people make so much money, they could contribute more so the ones who don't even come close to the threshold can count on SS when they get older. I think it's fair.